Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Essex County Council Bill [Lords.]
Dearne District Traction Bill [Lords.]
Cancer Hospital (Free) Bill [Lords.]
Torquay and Paignton Tramways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Elgin and Lossiemouth and South-wold) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered:—

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—(The Deputy-Chairman.).

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, EDMONTON.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the growth of the district, he will consider the provision of an Employment Exchange in Edmonton?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): There are at present three Employment Exchanges within approximately two miles of the centre of Edmonton. These Exchanges are fully adequate for the needs of the area, and I should not be justified in adding to them in present circumstances.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of the district has grown by nearly 10,000 between 1930 and 1933; that an unemployed person would have to walk two miles in either direction from Edmonton Town Hall either to. Tottenham Employment Exchange or to the Employment Exchange at Ponders End; and, in view of these facts, will he reconsider his decision?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have considered all these facts. It is true that the population has grown, but I have reason to believe that the present arrangements are adequate for the needs of the population, and I would not be justified in incurring additional public expense.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a great hardship to unemployed persons to have to walk two miles in order to sign on at the Exchange; and is he further aware that, in spite of the fact that there are three Exchanges within a certain radius, unemployed people have still to walk that distance?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is true that a certain limited number of these people have to go two miles, but I am not prepared to say that that is unreasonable.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Major CARVER: 13 and 15.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will consider, as an experiment, sanctioning the employment of labour, subsidised by transi-
tional payment or unemployment benefit, on some specific scheme of drainage or reclamation to be carried out by a selected local authority in the public interest;
(2) Whether he will investigate the question of large-scale land drainage of the low-lying districts of East Yorkshire, with special reference to the possibility of allocating unemployment benefit or transitional benefit for the subsidisation of the wages of men engaged in this form of work?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards the suggested subsidisation of employment on land drainage schemes, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 13th June, of which I am sending him a copy. I am, however, considering whether an experimental training scheme where the course of instruction will include land drainage is practicable, but I cannot undertake that it will be carried out in Yorkshire.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION'S PROPOSALS.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the representations made to him on behalf of 50 county councils asking him to proceed with schemes to provide work at wages for the unemployed, particularly able-bodied men who were in receipt of public assistance, what steps he has taken to ascertain from local authorities their requirements in housing, small holdings, water supplies, road improvements, reconstruction of bridges, land reclamation, land colonisation, and school buildings; and whether he will consider making a grant for every person for whom work is provided by local authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): As I said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on Tuesday, the Government were not able to accept the proposal put forward by the Association for subsidising relief work by payments from the National Exchequer in respect of the employment of persons who would otherwise receive transitional payments or public assistance. My department is in continuous communication with local
authorities about their requirements in relation to housing and water supplies, and loans for other purposes.

Mr. MACMILLAN: Is the hon. Member satisfied with the present rate of capital expenditure on loan account on subjects such as are mentioned in this question, and will the Department take steps to press upon local authorities the advantage of the present low money rates for developments of this kind?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think opportunity is always taken by local authorities to put forward sound revenue-producing schemes.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first persons to be consulted are the local ratepayers?

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. LUNN: 1.
(for Mr. PRICE) asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been deprived of benefit or transitional payments since the end of July, 1931?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The statistics do not enable me to give the number of separate applicants whose claims have been disallowed, but between 14th July, 1931, and 31st May, 1933, 1,040,915 claims for benefit or transitional payments were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain. Determinations by public assistance authorities and commissioners on applications for transitional payments during the period 12th November, 1931, to 6th May, 1933, included 1,036,763 in which the needs of applicants were held not to justify payment. This figure includes renewals and revisions as well as initial applications.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have any policy for dealing with those people who have been refused transitional payments except to send them to the Poor Law?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That matter has been discussed very often in debate, and I cannot deal with it in answer to a question.

Mr. COCKS: How many of these people have since died of starvation?

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 4.
(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of
Labour the total number of unemployed persons in the building trade up-to-date and the total unemployment benefit being paid?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 22nd May, 1933, was 168,896. Accounts are not kept of insurance benefit or transitional payments paid in separate trades, but assuming that the average rates for men and boys apply to this trade, the approximate cost of insurance benefit and transitional payments for the above number would be £135,000 a week.

ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 5.
(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have been refused benefit under the Anomalies Act up-to-date and the total weekly amount thereby saved?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Between J9th October, 1931, and 31st May, 1933, 260,430 claims for insurance benefit or transitional payments were disallowed under the Anomalies Regulations by courts of referees in Great Britain. The figure relates to claims; the number of separate individuals concerned is not available. It is not practicable to make an accurate estimate of the saving, but it is roughly at the rate of £75,000 a week.

Mr. BUCHANAN: How can there be any saving on transitional payments seeing that persons covered by this Act are within the terms of standard benefit claims?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all persons who are affected by the Anomalies Act have a stamp qualification for standard benefit, and therefore cannot be affected by transitional payments?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a saving of this amount?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The saving under the Anomalies Act is roughly the figure which I have given in answer to the Question. What the effect of that might be in other directions I cannot say.

GLASGOW (DEPUTATION).

Mr. MAXTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland his reasons for refusing to meet a deputation of unemployed men who had marched from Glasgow to Edinburgh to voice the claims of the unemployed, whether these men are now in Edinburgh without shelter and whether he proposes to take any action?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): As regards the first part of the question, it did not appear to me that any useful purpose would be served by my receiving this deputation. As regards the second part, I am informed that these men are no longer in Edinburgh, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that because the men have left Edinburgh the grievances of the Glasgow unemployed have been removed?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir, by no means.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, as he has received almost all sort of deputations during his term of office, he refuses to meet a perfectly legitimate deputation of the unemployed in Edinburgh?

Sir G. COLLINS: I thought in this particular case that no good purpose would be secured by my receiving the deputation, and I am fortified in that view by the policy of the late Labour Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Department must have some cognisance of the grievances of this large body of men, and why is it that when they come to him constitutionally to state their grievances he does not extend to them the usual courtesy of hearing them, as he does to richer deputations?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have received deputations from rich and from poor during my term of office. It is not because they
were poor that I refused to receive them in this case. I might mention to the hon. Gentleman that on 3rd May last I wrote to this deputation saying that I thought no useful purpose would be served by my receiving them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether this is not the first deputation of the unemployed who have asked to see the right hon. Gentleman since he took office, and consequently he has not been asked to receive poor people? Why is it that in this case, when a number of people wish to put before him their grievances in a perfectly constitutional and legitimate way, he does not meet them with that ordinary courtesy which they have extended to him? Why is it that he cannot at least give the courteous treatment to these people which they have evidently given to him?

Sir G. COLLINS: I gave this matter very serious consideration before I came to the decision which I announced to them on the 3rd May.

Mr. MAXTON: Was the right hon. Gentleman influenced in any respect, by the fact that the request to receive this deputation was made to him by myself as a Member of this House; and is he aware that the reply to my request was the curtest letter which I have ever received from any Minister of the Crown at any time?

WAGES AND COST-OF-LIVING.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 8
asked the Minister of Labour (1) by how much the real value of average weekly wages has risen or fallen as at 1st June, 1933, by comparison with the real value for the year 1924, using columns 3 and 4 of page 85 of the Macmillan Report [Cmd. 3897] as the basis of calculation;
(2) can he state the cost-of-living index (M/L) for 1924 (using basis: 1924 equals 100 in each case) and the cost-of-living index for the latest ascertained period in 1933, and, similarly, the index number of average weekly wages for 1924 and the index number for the latest ascertained period in 1933; and will he make the calculation as it was made in paragraph 187 of the Macmillan Report [Cmd. 3897] in order that the loss or gain in the real value of weekly wages may be compared as between the two years 1924 and 1933;
(3) whether he will, soon after 1st July next, bring up to date, and in the same form, the comparative tables which showed wholesale prices, cost-of-living, and certain other related indices in paragraph 187 of the Macmillan Report [Cmd. 3897] by adding the figures for the completed years 1931 and 1932, and for the first six months of 1933, and publish the tables in the Board of Trade Journal?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have had a detailed reply prepared which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing his reply to appear in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and giving it some prominence?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider that suggestion.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I also put this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman? In view of misconception arising as to the value of wages, would it not be advisable to give the fullest publicity to this information?

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, however, that the Ministry receive comparatively few of the agreements which are made throughout the country, and are not therefore in a position to speak with authority as to the real wages received?

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we can compare like with like?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider all these things. I agree that the fullest publicity should be given to this matter, and I will consider the suggestion that these details should be published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Following is the reply:

On the basis of the average level of the year 1924 taken as = 100, as used in the table in paragraph 187 of the Macmillan Report, the official index number of working-class cost of living at 1st May, 1933 (the latest date for which figures are at present available), was approximately 78, and the index number of average weekly full-time rates of wages was approximately 95. The increase between 1924 and 1st May, 1933, in the real value of average full-time weekly rates
of wages, as indicated by these figures, was approximately 22 per cent. This calculation takes no account of the effects of short-time, unemployment, and other factors on the average level of actual earnings at the two dates, as to which comprehensive statistics are not available.

Statistical tables showing the quarterly changes in wholesale prices, cost of living, average weekly wage rates, and industrial production, on the basis of the year 1924 taken as = 100, as used in paragraph 187 of the Macmillan Report, are published regularly in the quarterly Supplement to the Ministry of Labour Gazette. The latest issue of this Supplement, containing figures for the years 1924 to 1932, and for the first quarter of 1933, was published with the current (May) issue of the Gazette. Figures for the second quarter of 1933 will appear in the next quarterly Supplement, which will be published with the August issue of the Gazette.

Mr. PARKINSON: 7.
(for Mr. WILLIAMS) asked the Minister of Labour if he can state what is the percentage increase of rents over the 1914 level of the controlled houses and of the decontrolled houses covered by the inquiries for the cost-of-living index?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is estimated that at 1st May, the latest date for which figures are at present available, the average increase over the level of July, 1914, in rents, including rates, was approximately 48 to 49 per cent., in the case of controlled working-class dwellings, and about 85 per cent. in the case of decontrolled working-class dwellings.

Mr. LUNN: 11.
(for Mr. TOM SMITH) asked the Minister of Labour whether the rent statistics used in compiling the cost-of-living index are still confined to pre-War houses; and whether, in that event, he will consider including post-War houses, and thus bring the figure more nearly into line with the actual conditions of housing and rents?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The cost-of-living index number is designed to indicate the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living of working-class families, and the rent statistics included relates only to pre-War houses. I am afraid that it
would be difficult to include the rents of post-War houses within the scope of the present index number owing to the absence of any pre-War basis for calculating percentages of increases in the rents of such houses.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the great change that there has been in rents since the War, is it not time that there was a revision of the Index?

Sir H. BETTERTON: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. There has been a change, of course. I appreciate very much the importance of the point, and I am now considering it.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether rents have fallen comparably with the fall in the cost of the other items in the Index?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot say that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put the question down, I will try to answer it.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what proportion of the pre-War houses, the rents of which are used as a basis for the cost-of-living index figure, are now decontrolled?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of the pre-War working-class dwellings of which account is taken in the compilation of the official cost-of-living index figure, it is estimated, on the basis of such information as is at present available, that approximately one-fifth are now decontrolled.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman form any estimate as to the increase of rent that has taken place because of decontrol.

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I cannot.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the effect of decontrol and the increase of rent that usually takes place when he reconsiders the whole subject?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the monthly article in the Ministry of Labour Gazette takes these matters into account and can be consulted in the Library?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, but I do not think that that is the question put by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour who are the British delegates to the Seventeenth General Conference of the International Labour Organisation now meeting at Geneva; and whether it is intended that a member of the Government shall attend the proceedings at any stage, in view of the importance of the matters under consideration?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will circulate the names of the delegates in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that the pressure of Parliamentary and other business does not permit of the attendance of a member of the Government.

Following are the names:

Government Delegates:

Mr. F. W. Leggett, C.B. (Principal Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour), and

Sir Walter S. Kinnear, K.B.E, (Controller of Insurance, Ministry of Health),

Mr. J. F. G. Price, C.B. (Principal Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour),

will also act as Government Delegate for certain matters.

Employers Delegates:

Sir James Lithgow, Bart. (Ex-President of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations, the Federation of British Industries and the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation).

Mr. J. B. Forbes Watson (Director of the National Confederation of En-ployers' Organisations; Member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office), will act as substitute Delegate representing Employers.

Workpeople's Delegate:

Mr. Arthur Hayday, J. P. (Vice-President of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress).

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Sir W. JENKINS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Joseph Patrick
Brown, Neath, died on 21st March, 1933, suffering from silicosis with marked anthracosis, and after a post-mortem examination he was certified as having crude silica (of dried lung) 2.17 per cent. and pure silica (of dried lung) 2.12 per cent.; that Brown had not worked since February, 1930, and because he was three weeks over the period provided for in the regulations compensation is refused to his widow and eight children; and will he take steps to amend the regulations so as to include all cases at any period?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The scheme provides in effect that no claim can be made if the workman dies more than three years after his last employment in the process which gave rise to silicosis, and has not in the meantime obtained a certificate from the medical board or already received compensation. The principle of a time limit is recognised in the provisions of the Statute dealing with the application of the Act to industrial diseases, and I am advised that so far as our present experience goes, three years is a sufficient period to allow for disability due to silicosis to develop after the man has left the employment. I am informed that Brown was disabled by silicosis some time before the expiry of the three years limit and that this was known to his advisers, but that unfortunately no application to the (medical board was made until after his death. The case is undoubtedly a hard one, but my right hon. Friend does not consider that it would justify him in proposing an amendment such as the hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. MARTIN: 18.
asked the Home Secretary how many associations of coal owners in England and Wales have been asked by his Department to draw up a scheme dealing with miners' compensation; how many have already formed schemes; and how many of such schemes he has approved or intends to approve?

Mr. HACKING: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind schemes of insurance by mutual indemnity associations. The position as regards these was indicated in the replies given on the 6th April and
18th May to questions by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Since then my right hon. Friend has been in further consultation with the Mining Association of Great Britain, through whom the negotiations in this matter have been conducted, with a view to completing the arrangements, and although he is not at present in a position to make any further statement, he desires me to give an assurance that the matter is being very actively pursued, and that he will not rest content until satisfactory arrangements have been established in every area.

Mr. MARTIN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance, may I ask for an answer to the first part of my question? How many have already got such schemes?

Mr. HACKING: May I put it another way? The laggards are Lancashire, Cumberland, and North Staffordshire, and steps are being taken to expedite matters there.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give us a full report when the Estimates come up for discussion, because this is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and we do not like continually putting questions down and always getting the same answers?

Mr. HACKING: I assure the hon. Member that we are dealing with this matter as expeditiously as we can and bringing all the pressure we can upon the laggards. We hope that very shortly satisfaction will be achieved.

Mr. MARTIN: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the number of colliery concerns which, having gone into liquidation in the past 12 months, have been unable to meet their full liabilities for workmen's compensation; and how many mine workers have been affected?

Mr. HACKING: I have been informed of 29 colliery liquidations occurring in the 12 months ended 31st May. In 26 of these it is definitely stated that no loss of compensation is involved. In the other three the information so far obtained is insufficient to enable me to make a definite statement.

Mr. MARTIN: In how many areas which have not so far any schemes
approved by the Ministry have such liquidations occurred?

Mr. HACKING: There are three cases outstanding. Two of them are in Wales. I am not sure about the other case.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET COLLECTIONS, LONDON.

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the principle underlying the granting of permits to hold flag days within the Metropolitan area; and the total number issued for the year 1933?

Mr. HACKING: Permits for street collections in the Metropolitan Police District are granted by the Commissioner on the recommendations of an Advisory Committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916. In making their recommendations, the Advisory Committee take into account the evidence of the bona fides of the applicants, and the safeguards offered for due observance of the Regulations, economy of administration, and the proper application of the proceeds. Not more than one permit is given in respect of the same area on any one day. Up to the 31st May, 164 permits had been issued for street collections during 1933, of which approximately one-half have already been held. Only 25 of the permits refer to general collections throughout the whole or greater part of the district; the remainder are local collections.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (ACCIDENTS, GROSVENOR GARDENS, S.W.1).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider taking steps to reduce the number of accidents at Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.1?

Mr. HACKING: The Commissioner of Police informs me that the police are taking, and will continue to take, every possible step to reduce the number of accidents at this site. Police officers are stationed at three points in or immediately adjacent to Grosvenor Gardens, and in his view an increase in the number of police on duty there would not be justified. Traffic signals are already in operation at the junction of the gardens with Hobart Place and Grosvenor Place,
and I understand that the question of erecting signals at the junction of the gardens with Buckingham Palace Road and Victoria Street is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. CROSS: 22.
asked the Home Secretary on what principles his Department- acts as regards excluding aliens from this country if their purpose is to institute a. system of labour which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, is sweated or otherwise undesirable?

Mr. HACKING: An alien who is permitted to start a business or factory in this country is required to comply with any restrictions which are applicable to a British subject carrying on the same trade or business.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (COMMITTEE).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government is now prepared to appoint a committee to consider the question of imprisonment for debt?

Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend is, about to appoint a committee to consider the subject of imprisonments ordered by courts of summary jurisdiction for non-payment of fines, of rates and of sums due under wife maintenance and affiliation order. He hopes to announce the names of the members in a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH SWEEPSTAKES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 24.
asked the Home Secretary the amount estimated to have been subscribed to the various Irish sweepstakes, and the amounts distributed in prizes, in Great Britain; and whether he proposes to take steps to prohibit publication by newspapers of prizes, prize winners, and other aids to this form of gambling?

Mr. HACKING: On the assumption that the amount subscribed in Great Britain to the sweepstakes promoted by the Hospitals Trust, Limited, Dublin, is proportionate to the prizes known to have been won in this country, the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting calcu-
late that up to and including the sweepstake on the Grand National, 1933, a sum of £18,745,000 was subscribed in Great Britain. On the same basis it is estimated that £2,500,000 was subscribed in Great Britain to the sweepstake on the Derby, 1933. The total amount thus subscribed in Great Britain to the nine sweepstakes promoted by the Hospitals Trust Limited is approximately £21,200,000. The amount won as prizes in Great Britain is approximately £11,330,000. As regards the second part of the question, this is one of the matters which His Majesty's Government will consider in the light of the recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. LAMBERT: Having regard to the magnitude of these figures, may I ask. My right hon. Friend whether the Government have any power to prevent crazy British people contributing to the revenues of this defaulting Irish State?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Has my right hon. Friend any figures at hand to show how much of the amount subscribed was spent on expenses, how much went to the hospitals, and how much to the revenues of the Irish Free State?

Mr. HACKING: No, I have not got that information available.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: How many of these prizes went to Darwen?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (STAFFING).

Mr. WHITE: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he has received any reports from His Majesty's inspectors indicating excessive staffing in secondary schools?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
(for Mr. MALLALIEU) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, if he can state, as on the latest convenient date, the ratio of teachers to pupils in public secondary schools?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: On 31st March, 1932, the total number of pupils in grant-aided secondary schools was 432,061, and
the number of full-time teachers 22,293, including 1,332 head teachers, giving a ratio of 20.6 pupils per teacher, excluding head teachers, and 19.4 including head teachers.

TEACHERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. WHITE: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, what action is being taken to ease the situation for teachers who left training colleges in July last and who have not yet been able to obtain appointments?

Mr. MALLALIEU: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he has any recent information as to the number of teachers who left training colleges in July last who have so far failed to obtain employment?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: According to the returns just received from the training colleges and University training departments, of the 8,250 students who left in July, 1932, 7,540 have obtained teaching posts, and 606 have not yet obtained employment as teachers. In the case of the remaining 104 no information is available, but it is probable that many of these have in fact secured employment. Steps have already been taken to reduce considerably the number of students entering training colleges this year, and the board are continuing to observe the situation very closely.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CHILDREN OVER 14.)

Mr. MANDER: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state, as on the latest convenient date, the number of children remaining in elementary schools after the term in which they reach the age of 14?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend regrets that information is not available in the precise form asked for in the question; but the number of children aged 14 years 3 months and over remaining in public elementary schools in England and Wales, on the 31st March, 1932, was 53,409.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEMES (CONSOLIDATION).

Sir W. JENKINS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will con-
sider the advisability of taking steps to provide an all-in insurance scheme which will include national health, unemployment, old age pensions, and workmen's compensation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Consideration has been given from time to time to a scheme of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, but the conclusion has been that the financial and administrative difficulties in replacing the existing schemes by such a scheme as the hon. Member has in mind are so serious as to outweigh any possible advantages. My right hon. Friend does not think that a further review of the subject would be likely to lead to any different conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN VISITORS (VISA FEES).

Mr. LECKIE: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had an opportunity of considering the representations made to him by the London Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with other bodies, for the abolition of the 10-dollar-visa fee on American visitors' passports, on the ground that it is affecting the volume of tourist traffic into this country; and if he will now take steps to abolish it accordingly?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend has considered the representations made, but he is not satisfied that the course recommended would have the beneficial effects claimed for it, and in present circumstances he does not feel justified in sacrificing the substantial revenue which is obtained from this source.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS, HULL.

Major CARVER: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the tenants on the Anlaby Common allotments, near Hull, are being dispossessed of their holdings after upwards of 37 years' tenancy; and what steps it is proposed to take to protect these tenants as it is part of their means of livelihood?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to answer. My right hon. Friend has no information with regard to the matter referred to, but he is having inquiries made and will inform
my hon. and gallant Friend of the result in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS (JAPAN).

Mr. MANDER: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that, in connection with pending trade negotiations with Japan, no engagement will be entered into limiting the power of this country to participate forthwith in any international sanction under the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on the 22nd May.

Mr. MANDER: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think the Japanese Government are the least likely to keep any engagements they enter into, in view of past experience?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 45.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now inform the House on the progress of the Anglo-Japanese conversations relative to commercial competition in overseas markets?

Captain DOWER: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the reply received from the Japanese Government with regard to the convening of a conference between Japanese and United Kingdom industries; and also what general progress has been made with the preliminary negotiations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot at present add anything to the statement I made in the Debate on the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the desirability of consulting with the trade associations before a reply is sent, and, in connection with that conversation, can he give the House the assurance that representatives of all sections of the cotton trade, which is very grievously affected by this matter, will be consulted?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I can assure my hon. Friend that contact is being made and will be kept with the Lancashire organisations on this matter.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Do I understand from that answer that all sections of the trade will be brought into consultation?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I should require to have notice about all sections.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of goods imported from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics under special licence to the latest convenient date?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have not complete information as to the value of goods actually imported from the Soviet Union under licence, but up to the 14th June licences have been issued for the importation of Russian goods to the value of approximately £126,000.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that these large importations under licence are very much against the spirit and the effective working of the embargo?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The licences have been issued in conformity with the principle that a considerable amount of prepayment must be made before any licences are given.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA (BRITISH FOOTWEAR).

Lieut. Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty experienced by firms desirous of importing United Kingdom footwear into Czechoslovakia in obtaining the necessary import licences; and whether, in view of the fact that about 125,000 pairs of foot wear, valued at about £26,000, entered the United Kingdom during the first three months of this year, His Majesty's Government will take vigorous action to induce the Czechoslovakian Government to issue licences for an adequate quantity of footwear from this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The importation of many kinds of goods into Czechoslovakia is subject to exchange
licences, which it is understood are granted without any definite quota limits in the case of certain goods, including footwear, provided that the proposed importation is associated with a compensating export transaction. This arrangement in itself does not appear to involve discrimination against the United Kingdom export trade.

SOUTH WALES PORTS.

Mr. RICHARD EVANS: 46 and 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state (1) the tonnage and value of all imports into South Wales ports during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, and the countries of origin;
(2) the tonnage and value of all exports from South Wales ports during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, and the countries of destination?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in the foreign trade at ports in South Wales during the years 1930 and 1931. The corresponding figures for 1932 are not yet available and particulars regarding the countries of consignment of the goods entered or cleared at individual ports are not compiled. Figures of the aggregate tonnage of imports and exports at ports in South Wales cannot be stated.

—
1930.
1932.



£
£


Total Imports
19,406,736
16,074,051


Exports:




Produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
39,623,870
28,832,306


Imported merchandise.
35,885
49,601

BATA WORKS, DAGENHAM.

Mr. CROSS: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any technical process different in principle from those employed in this country will be used at the Bata shoe and slipper works, Dagenham?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no information on this subject.

Mr. CROSS: Will my hon. Friend obtain such information before he makes any recommendations to the Home Secretary with regard to the Czechoslovakian technicians who are to come into this country for the purpose of instructing in this machinery at the new shoe and slipper works at Dagenham?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not think that that supplementary question arises. In any event, it does not seem to be a matter for the Board of Trade.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Lord SCONE: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding Portuguese flag discrimination?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The negotiations have now reached an advanced stage and are proceeding satisfactorily.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects to have them calculated?

Mr. EDEN: It is difficult to give a date, but I hope that they will be concluded shortly.

SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 36.
(for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the difficulties caused to British merchant shipping and exporting industries by the policy of the Suez Canal Company in relation to British trade; and will he consider reconstituting the official British membership of the Suez Canal Company Board at an early opportunity so as to give better protection to British interests?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar questions on this subject on Tuesday last, and of which I am sending him a, copy.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that this system of having two sets of directors, official and trade directors, results in the trade representa-
tion on the Suez Canal Board being weaker than it would otherwise be?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Lord SCONE: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that inconvenience and loss have been suffered by Scottish farmers owing to the delay on the part of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in issuing their decision in regard to imported oats and oat products; and if he will consider increasing the size of the committee to avoid the recurrence of such delays?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The degree of rapidity with which decisions can be reached in any particular case depends mainly on the nature of the application and the circumstances of the industry to which it relates, and I have no reason to think that an enlargement of the membership of the committee would result in greater expedition.

Lord SCONE: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult indeed for farmers to know what crops to plant when they are kept waiting for many months to know whether they will be getting the benefit of a tariff or not?

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Although the enlargement of the committee might not expedite the work, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer ask the committee whether there are any suggestions they could make which would enable applications to be dealt with more quickly?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only ask them to consider the suggestion in the question. The suggestion was that by enlarging the committee decisions might be more expeditiously reached. It would be difficult to concur in such a suggestion.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask why I was not given the same reply a month ago, when I asked the same question, because I proposed that the committee should be enlarged a month ago, and I was referred to what had been said in December?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. Truth is eternal.

Lord SCONE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what has been the reason for the lamentable delay in this case?

KRAFT PAPER (PRICE, SWEDEN).

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 50.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will find out from the British Government's representative in Sweden what was the average wholesale price at which kraft paper was sold in Sweden for internal consumption during the months of January, February, and March of this year?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The British Legation at Stockholm state that they are reliably informed that Kraft paper, weighing not less than 40 grammes per square metre, has, during the past months, been sold for internal consumption in Sweden at prices ranging from 32 ore to 44 ore per kilogramme, the price varying with the circumstances of the sale. It is understood that these prices are general and are regulated by the cartel.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY (MOTOR VEHICLES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 51.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for Air the number of motor vehicles supplied to the Air Ministry during each of the last four years; whether the Air Ministry adopt the practice of other Departments in calling for competitive tenders for the supply of motor vehicles; and whether this practice was followed by the Air Ministry in all cases in the before-mentioned years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The numbers of motor vehicles ordered during the financial years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 were 231, 244, 126 and 69 respectively, purchases being based on the dual considerations of suitability for service requirements and price. Competitive tendering is resorted to when the circumstances render this course suitable and practicable, but in certain instances the field of selection is limited by the types available, and in others a knowledge of catalogue prices and market conditions make it unnecessary. When a particular type of vehicle has been selected by competitive tendering, it is sometimes found convenient and economical to standardise it for a period in order to avoid the duplication of vehicles and stocks of spares.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it that the Air Ministry do not in every case ask for competitive tenders for these vehicles?

Sir P. SASSOON: We do make the general practice of doing so, but, as I say in my answer, there are certain considerations that have to be borne in mind on occasions.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: What are those considerations?

Sir P. SASSOON: One of them was the need for standardisation for a certain period in order to avoid duplication of vehicles and stocks of spares.

Mr. LAMBERT: May we be assured that there is no favouritism given to any firm in the supply of these vehicles?

Sir P. SASSOON: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (STAFF COLLEGE).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what proportion of pupils are admitted to the staff college as the result of a competitive examination and what proportion are nominated for general merit; and if he will give the figures for last year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Cooper): No officer is eligible for nomination to the staff college unless he has qualified at the staff college entrance examination. The proportion between the number who gain competitive vacancies and the number who are nominated varies with the results of the particular examination. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of an Army Order which explains the system. The numbers admitted after the examination held in 1932 were 36 officers by competition and 24 by nomination.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC SANCTIONS).

Mr. MANDER: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Government is in a position to act forthwith in connection with any international economic sanction under the Covenant of the League of Nations or if notice would have to be given to terminate existing trade agreements first?

Mr. EDEN: In view of Article 20 of the Covenant, the provisions of existing trade agreements could not be held to stand in the way of action which it were obligatory for a member of the League to take under the Covenant.

Mr. MANDER: Would it be possible to act forthwith in the case of any trade agreement now existing?

Mr. EDEN: The Article says that members of the League
agree that this covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations inconsistent with the terms thereof…

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).

Lord SCONE: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct His Majesty's Minister in Rio de Janeiro to ascertain and report the cause for the continued delay in terminating the default by the State of Rio de Janeiro upon its obligations to British investors; and whether he is aware that the delay is causing hardship to those British subjects who entrusted their savings to the Brazilian borrowers?

Mr. EDEN: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 5th April negotiations for a settlement of these obligations have been suspended while a general settlement is being considered. In these circumstances I do not consider that any useful purpose will be served by calling for a report.

Lord SCONE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when a general settlement is likely to be completed?

Mr. EDEN: No, I am afraid that I cannot; the general scheme is under examination now by a Brazilian commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. LUNN: 33.
(for Mr. PRICE) asked the Minister of Health if he can make any statement on the position of slum clearance?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since the passing of the Housing Act, 1930, up to the 13th June, resolutions had been received from 185 Local Authorities declaring 847 areas, comprising 21,938 houses, to be
clearance areas; 592 Clearance and Compulsory Purchase Orders affecting 16,117 houses had been submitted and of these Orders 390, affecting 9,414 houses, had been confirmed. A further 729 houses, in 39 clearance areas, had been purchased by agreement by 17 local authorities. It is too early yet for a statement on the results of my right hon. Friend's recent circular to local authorities.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Has my hon. Friend any idea of what relation this bears to the complete programme that is to be carried through in five years?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Oh, very little at all. This is the position previous to the change in housing policy by the Government.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Have not the local authorities been asked to provide an estimate of the action they propose to take in order to complete this slum clearance in five years?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My hon. Friend will remember that the local authorities were asked to let us know their programme, and how they intend to deal with the problem, by September next. At present it is too early to say what the result will be.

DECONTROL.

Mr. LUNN: 35.
(for Mr. T. SMITH) asked the Minister of Health whether he can say what proportion of all houses and what proportion of urban working-class houses are decontrolled?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the estimates given in Command Paper 4208.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL, BUGBROOKE.

Mr. PARKINSON: 34.
(for Mr. T. WILLIAMS) asked the Minister of Health whether any steps have been taken towards carrying out the provision of a proper scheme of sewage disposal for the village of Bugbrooke, Northants?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the Northampton Rural District Council as to the result of steps recently taken by them for dealing with the matter referred to by the hon. Member and as to whether further measures are needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN REFORM (BURMA).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 53.
(for Mr. MORGAN JONES) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the report of the proceedings of the recent session of the Burma Legislative Council; whether he is aware that the members of the Burma Legislative Council who are in favour of federation with India were prevented by the president of the Burma Legislative Council either from moving their motion for federation with India as an amendment to the separationist motion or from moving the closure; that the recent session of the Burma Legislative Council was prorogued without the members in favour of federation with India having any opportunity either of moving their motion or of putting it to the vote of the council; that it was because of this position having arisen that 44 members of the council signed a statement that they were in favour of and would vote for federation with India; and whether he will now cause invitations to be sent to representatives of Burma to attend as delegates the meetings of the Joint Select Committee?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My right hon. Friend has now received the report of the proceedings of the recent session, but has found in it nothing to lead him to modify the answer which he gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 1st June. The situation is under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what the business will be for next week, and also for what purpose he proposes to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Motion on the Paper is a precautionary Motion. We hope to take the first five Orders, and I think that probably they will be completed in good time. We are anxious to get all five. The business next week will be:
Monday and Tuesday: Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday: Remaining stages of the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Bill; Committee stage of a Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Labour.
Thursday: Supply, Committee (8th Allotted Day). The Estimates for the Department of Health, Scotland, and Public Education, Scotland, will be considered.
Friday: Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
The Government also hope during the week to dispose of the remaining stages of the Government of India (Amendment) Bill [Lords,] which is on the Order Paper to-day for Second Reading.
If there is time on any other day other business will be taken.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether any other Estimate is to be considered than those for the Scottish Departments of Health and Education?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have on my Paper at present only the Estimates for the

Departments of Health and Education for Scotland.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it possible for us to move to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that would arise on the Vote for the Health Department, but I will not commit myself to saying that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that we are not consulted in these matters, I beg to give notice to the Secretary of State for Scotland that on that day we shall raise the question, particularly in regard to his treatment of the unemployed in Edinburgh.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have (precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 24.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[3.34 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Copeland, Ids
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Apsley, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cross, R. H.
Horobin, Ian M.


Baillie, sir Adrian W. M.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Ma).Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bainlel, Lord
Dawson. Sir Philip
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Doran, Edward
Hurd, Sir Percy


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C
Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Ker, J. Campbell


Boulton, W. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Eimley, Viscount
Knight, Holford


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leckie, J. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lees-Jones, John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Levy, Thomas


Browne, Captain A. C.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llddall, Walter S.


Burnett, John George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major John J.


Butler, Richard Austen
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Carver, Major William H.
Got!, Sir Park
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graves, Marjorle
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cayzer, Ma|. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Christie, James Archibald
Hacking, Rt. Hon, Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Clarke, Frank
Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Martin, Thomas B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, Sir Richard James


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Harbord, Arthur
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hartland, George A.
Milne, Charles


Conant, R. J. E.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Cook, Thomas A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Morrison, William Shephard
Ross, Ronald D.
Stones, James


Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Salmon, Sir Islcore
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nunn, William
Sait, Edward W.
Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wallace, John (Duntermllne)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Patrick, Colin M.
Sandeman, Sir A, N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Petherick, M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Scone, Lord
Wedderburn,Henry James Serymgeour-


Pickering, Ernest H.
Selley, Harry R.
White, Henry Graham


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Potter, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Skeiton, Archibald Noel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Arnold (Hertford)


Rankin, Robert
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, Walter James


Rea, Walter Russell
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)



Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Soper, Richard
TELLERS FOR FOR AYES.—


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James



Daggar, George
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arnold Talbot Wilson, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., C.M.G., D.S.O., for the County of Hertford (Hitchin Division).

PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933).

Estimate presented—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1934 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.41 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has a very important title, broad enough to lead to suppositions that its contents are more far-reaching than they really are. It is important that the House should realise at once the scope of the Bill, and the reasons which have led to its introduction. The Bill has been introduced in order to enable provincial Governors to extend the lives of their legislatures until such period as the new Constitution may come into force. The reason why this matter is one of urgency is that the Bengal Legislative Council, which was originally elected on the 1st July, 1929, and which in the normal course would have expired on the 30th June, 1932, has already been extended for one year, under the present Government of India Act, to the 30th June of this year, when normally it will expire. Under the present Act the Governor has the power to extend, for a period not exceeding one year, the life of his legislature. Section 72B of the present Government of India Act reads as follows:
Every Governor's legislative council shall continue for three years from its first meeting"—
and Sub-section (b) says:
Such period may be extended by the Governor for a period not exceeding one year by notification in the Official Gazette of the Province.
As I have explained, this power has already been used by the Governor of Bengal, Sir John Anderson, and, while the matter is, therefore, of some urgency in this particular Province, it also arises in the case of some other legislatures. For instance, the Assam Council, which has already been once extended, will come to an end in September. Owing to the state of uncertainty as to when the new Constitution will come into force, it has been thought inadvisable, in this interim period, to plunge any province into the trouble and expense of an elec-
tion, particularly when it is uncertain at what exact date the new Constitution will come into being. The object of this Bill, therefore, is to bridge the gap between the present time and the period when the new Constitution comes into operation.
Some hon. Members may feel that it is wrong to imagine that consideration of the vital, extensive and important problems which are involved in Indian constitutional reform will be finished in a period within which a new council elected now might be expected to terminate its normal life, but, without wishing to forecast in any way the time that this consideration of reforms may take, and, most emphatically, without wishing to interfere in any way with the discretion of Parliament, I think it is possible to say that some decision of some sort must be taken in the reasonably near future. It has been thought inadvisable, therefore, that an upheaval should be indulged in at the present moment, in a period of financial stringency and in a period of uncertainty as to political development such as I have described, or to bring into existence a council which might not, if it were elected in these circumstances at the present time, conclude its normal term of life. Other hon. Members may, perhaps, say that the powers which we are seeking in this Bill are too general. If hon. Members will refer to the Bill, they will see that we propose to leave out of the existing provision, which I have already read, in the present Government of India Act, the words:
for a period not exceeding one year.
This will leave the choice open to the Governor, and he will not be limited to any particular time. We have thought that the introduction of a particular time limit might be tendentious. For instance, if we were to insert a short time limit within which the Governor would have the privilege of extending his legislative council, it might be thought that we were pre-judging the time within which Parliament would decide on this important problem. On the other hand, if we were to insert in our proposal a long period of time, it might cause unreasonable anxiety to Indians and others who are looking to Parliament to come to a decision, and might make them doubt whether we intended to come to any de-
cision at all upon the important problems before us. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the general powers that we seek to take are the most sensible way of dealing with the contingency which has arisen. I might add that, if anything unforeseen occurs, the situation will naturally have to be reviewed, and it is not our intention that these general powers shall be held by the Governors for an indefinitely long period. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that powers similar to those which we propose as regards provincial councils are already held by the Viceroy for the Central Legislature, and the Viceroy has already exercised those powers in extending the life of the Assembly. If, therefore, hon. Members give us their support on this Bill, they will be giving to the provincial Governors the same powers which the Viceroy has at present vis-à-vis the Central Legislature.
In conclusion, I would beg hon. Members not to exaggerate the scope of this Bill, but to regard it as being, as I have said, a common sense Measure which does not seek in any way to fetter the liberty of the House in deciding upon these vital problems. Rather does it leave the House and Parliament more free to continue their discussions and consideration of these problems in an atmosphere uninterrupted by elections in India. I have been glad to see that at least one paper in India considers that this intervening period might be used for the development of those chances of administrative and social reform which are within the present competence of the Indian Legislatures, and, if the councils co-operate with the local governments in pushing forward their task of nation-building, which is no more important anywhere in the world than in India, in an atmosphere from which the uncertainty of the life of the councils has been removed, I think it may lead Indian administration to proceed along its career of usefulness until Parliament in its wisdom has decided what sort of Constitution shall come into being in the future.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We do not intend to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. I recognise that in present conditions it is necessary to con-
tinue the life of the provincial legislative councils. I also recognise that, although this is putting a very extended power into the hands of the Governors, it is not intended that it should be used for anything except to get through a transition period. Although this is a very small Bill, one has to realise that from a constitutional point of view it is extremely far-reaching. It means, in fact, the suspension of elections to provincial councils indefinitely, in accordance with the Governor's will. We should have liked to see this limited to a definite period, but we recognise the difficulty of putting in any particular time limit. A short time might raise unjustifiable expectations and a long time might have a depressing effect. Therefore, probably the only thing is to leave it open. We think that the sooner we can get through the transition period the better, and we shall offer no objection whatever to the Measure.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In normal circumstances there could be no support to a Measure which gives to a Governor such considerable power as this Bill gives, but it is clear that we are not in normal circumstances in relation to India and that we are passing through a period which is very exceptional in its history. It would in the circumstances therefore be preposterous if while we have in this country representatives of public opinion in India, there should at the same time be all the turmoil and disturbance arising either from an election or from the preparations for an election. Again, in normal circumstances one would want a time limit during which the Governor was to be possessed of this great power, but I think the reasons put forward by the Under-Secretary are unanswerable and are fair to all sections of opinion in the House—fair equally to those who want the transition period to be very short and to those who would like no changes at all to be effected. In the circumstances, I hope that upon all sides of the House this can be looked upon as a non-controversial Measure and that it may be speedily passed into law.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Butler,]

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1. (Application for Provisional Order Notices), 2 (Report by Chairmen that Procedure should not be by Provisional Order), and 3 (Amendment of S. 3 of principal Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 6 of principal Act.)

Mr. MILNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
the following Sub-section shall be added after Sub-section (4): —
(5) The Secretary for Scotland shall as soon as possible cause a copy of every such recommendation to be sent to the petitioners and to any persons who have in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time objected to the proposed order; and.
The purpose of the Amendment is to supply an omission in the Act. When an Order is promoted, the promoters are required to furnish to the Secretary of State for Scotland a draft of the proposed Order, and copies of the draft have also to be sent to some Government Departments. If these Government Departments have any criticism to offer or any objection to take to the Order, they make their recommendations in a report to the Secretary of State. When the Order is opposed, Commissioners are appointed and they hold an inquiry, and the Act especially provides that these recommendations shall be placed before the Commission. Here is the defect which the Amendment seeks to repair. The Act fails to make any provision to secure that these reports shall be made available to the promoters and to any objectors that there may be. It has happened in the past that until an inquiry has actually commenced the promoters or the objectors, or both, may be entirely ignorant of some objection or some criticism made by a Government Department and, had they known of it in good time, it may well be that they would have collected evidence and been able to satisfy the tribunal that the criticism was unfounded. In a Court of Law the ordinary rules of procedure require that all documents shall be made available to the parties
well in advance of the hearing. I am told that the Scottish Office have lately adopted the laudable practice of making these reports available, but it is merely a matter of indulgence. They do it ex gratia. The Amendment confers a statutory right upon the parties to have these reports sent to them.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): The present position with regard to the matter dealt with in the Amendment is that it depends not upon any statutory enactment but upon a general Order whch is made under the original Statute of 1899. That general Order provides that:
Whenever a recommendation relating to a proposed Provisional Order shall have been made by the chairmen, or in a report by any public Department, it shall be referred to the commissioners. Every such report by a public Department shall be made to the Secretary of State as soon as may be and, where an inquiry is directed, at least three days before the date of such inquiry, and the Secretary of State shall cause the same to be referred to the commissioners.
Accordingly, there is only a space of three days before the inquiry actually takes place in which these reports have to be made available for those who are interested in them. The present practice is that the Scottish Office sends all the reports to the promoter's agent. It is, I think, a matter, perhaps, of justifiable complaint that the time, three days, is inadequate. My right hon. Friend, therefore, proposes, subject to the concurrence of the chairmen, which is necessary under the Act, to amend the general Order so as to provide for the making of reports of Departments at least seven days before the inquiry by the Commissioners. That, I think, will meet one part, at any rate, of the difficulty which my hon. Friend feels.
As regards the other point, namely, making these reports available to parties interested, the present practice of making them available to the promoters will continue, and, in addition, I am authorised to say that when this new Bill comes into operation, arrangements will be made by which opponents, that is objectors, to the provisional order who have an interest in the subject matter of the reports, will be able to obtain these reports either by personal attendance here at the Scottish Office, or by personal attendance at the Edinburgh Department, or by writing to the Scottish Office here and asking for
them. I think my hon. Friend will agree that a combination of that alteration of the general Order, plus administrative action, will really secure the substance of what he desires. I trust that, on those undertakings, he may see his way to withdraw his Amendment, for I think a detailed procedure of that kind is not properly a matter which should be included in the Bill, but is rather a matter for general Order or administrative action.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: The matter just discussed by the Solicitor-General for Scotland raises an important point which has been introduced in the Amendment standing on the Order Paper, immediately before the Amendment we are discussing, in the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson). If is a point which has caused a good deal of discussion as to how it could be arranged that Departmental reports of Provisional Orders should be made available in time to be considered by the parties, and be brought before the Commissioners with adequate opportunity for discussion. I think that the arrangements proposed by the Government to amend the Standing Orders so as to provide an interval of seven days will remove one of the objections at which the Amendment is striking, and the promise of administrative action thereafter to make available to parties in Edinburgh those reports will, I think, do a great deal to remove very largely, if not entirely, the other objection. Accordingly, I welcome and thank the Government for having made this arrangement and given this undertaking, which, I think, will succeed in removing the grievance.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would like to ask one question. We are here dealing with very complicated questions of Scottish law which raise possibilities of financial considerations. The question I wish to put is, who is going to pay the cost of the production of these additional copies? Provided it concerns the parties themselves, I have no objection whatever to the provision which my hon. and learned Friend is going to carry out, but, in order to safeguard the position of the taxpayer, I do wish for an assurance that there is no possibility of any increased cost of administration in his office which
might swell the size of his office, and so bear on the taxpayer. I think it is the primary duty of Members of this Parliament to be very careful of these matters. I would, therefore, ask him that question, which, I feel sure, he will be able to answer.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: Perhaps the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is not aware that promoters at present pay pretty heavy fees, and I venture to think that some expenditure might be obtained out of those fees, and still leave a profit to the taxpayer. But I do sympathise with the hon. Member's point of view very much, because one does not want expenditure to be put on the taxpayer in eases where private interests are concerned. I also desire to welcome the statement made by the Solicitor-General, because I happen to know that in many cases not only is great embarrassment caused at present by the holding up of reports by the Government Departments—not of course the Secretary of State's Department—tout I understand that in certain cases reports do not even come before the Commissioners, or they arrive too late before them, and I trust that no report will be considered by the Secretary of State unless it has been before the Commissioners, or unless it deals solely with some alteration that has been made in the Bill by the Commissioners during the progress of the inquiry.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: In view of the undertaking which the Solicitor-General has found himself able to make, which, I think, will be entirely satisfactory to all reasonable people, then, if it be agreeable to the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Before consent is given to the withdrawal of the Amendment, may I ask for a reply to, my question?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I can reassure the hon. Member that there will be no additional charge put upon the taxpayer as the result of the undertaking I have given.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Member says there will be no additional direct charge, but will there be any in-
direct loss which was rather insinuated by the hon. and learned Gentleman?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am not subtle enough to draw a distinction between an additional charge and an indirect loss. My assurance covers both.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: If the proposals in the Amendment are desirable in order that justice should be done to parties, why should not provision be made in the Act rather than by some administrative action, which may be here to-day and gone to-morrow? I should very much like to know the explanation as to why these provisions should not be put into the Act.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think the explanation is very simple. The grievance arises out of a general Order and not out of any statutory enactment. We propose to amend the general Order and that will substantially remove the grievance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of s. 11 of principal Act.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 4, line 38, at the end, to add the words:

"and the following Sub-section shall be added after Sub-section (3):

(4) The Secretary for Scotland shall as soon as possible cause a copy of every such report to be sent to the petitioners and to any persons who have in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time objected to the proposed Order."—[Mr. Milne.]

4.9 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: This Amendment is on all fours with the one to which I have just spoken. Other bodies beside Government Departments furnish these reports. County councils and town councils, if so advised, may send reports to the Secretary of State, and the Amendment is designed to secure that these reports also should be made available. But in view of the undertaking received from the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I do not propose to move this Amendment.

Clauses 6 (Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act) and 7 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 13 of principal Act.)

In Section thirteen of the principal Act the following words shall be added at the end of the Section: "The examinations shall be held in Scotland."—[Mr. Milne].

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the Act has been largely frustrated. It was the aim and the intention of the framers of the Act that all proceedings connected with our private legislation, as far as possible, should be carried out in Scotland. In point of fact, the great majority of the Orders, certainly of the more important Orders, are drafted in Loudon, and the proceedings are carried through by London solicitors. It was in the contemplation of the Legislature that this should be done in Edinburgh. One of the principal reasons for this unsatisfactory state of matters is the fact that the Scottish Office is situated not in Edinburgh, where it ought to be—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I do not know whether the hon. Member quite realises the exact implication of the Clause he is proposing. He proposes that:
In Section thirteen of the principal Act the following words shall be added at the end of the Section: 'The examinations shall be held in Scotland.'
Those examinations really relate to examinations for Standing Orders before the Examiners, and the hon. Member seems to be making what is in the nature of a Third Reading speech.

Mr. MILNE: I stand corrected. My purpose in making that reference to the Scottish Office—and I was going on to say that I was not intending to enter into it at all—was because I wanted to preserve a proper sense of proportion. There is another cause, which is a contributory one. Examinations are held in Scotland. I had better explain what that means, as it is a technical term. There are officials called Examiners who
hold examinations. These are technical terms which will be found in the Act. At these examinations the promoters are required to appear, and, if need be, to lead evidence in order to satisfy the examiners that the general orders have been complied with. It was in the contemplation of the Legislature that these examinations would be conducted in Scotland, because in the principal Act it will be found that the Legislature 'makes provision for payment of the travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of the examiners.
More than that, I find that there is a general Order which provides that, when it appears to be for the general convenience of the parties interested, or to be otherwise advisable, the examination shall be held in Scotland. As long as it depends on the convenience of the parties, or, I suppose, the convenience of the London agents, then it seems to me the prospect is remote indeed of our ever seeing an examiner in Scotland. But there is no reason whatsoever why examiners should not come north to Scotland. Apart from travelling expenses, no expense would be incurred, and I am certain that the examiners themselves would be perfectly ready to come north to Scotland. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to insert these words, so that the examinations shall be held in Scotland.

4.15 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The present position is that under the general Orders the appointment of time and place for examinations shall be in the discretion of the Commissioners, provided that where it appears to be for the general convenience of the parties interested, or otherwise advisable, the examination shall be held in Scotland. Accordingly, at the present time what determines the question whether the examination shall take place in London or in Edinburgh is solely the convenience of the parties, and not the convenience of the Examiners or anyone else. It would be inappropriate by legislation to compel examinations to take place in London, even although that was contrary to the convenience of the promoters and other parties interested in the Orders. If hereafter the promoters choose to employ
Parliamentary agents in Edinburgh, the result will be that the examinations will, in an increasing degree, take place in Edinburgh, which will be a convenient place for them, and the existing provisions give all the necessary power for an examination to take place in Edinburgh unless it is inconvenient to hold it there. Therefore, I must oppose the proposed new Clause.

Mr. MILNE: In view of what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said, I realise that there are difficulties. I fear that this reform, along with many other reforms, must await the removal of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh, and accordingly, with the permission of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 8 of principal Act.)

For Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act the following Sub-section shall be substituted:
(I)If

(a) there is opposition to the Order and the opposition has not been withdrawn; or
(b) the opposition has been withdrawn after inquiry held; or
(c) although there is no opposition, inquiry has been held;

the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue a Provisional Order if the commissioners report that the Order should not be made, or if they do not so report he may issue an Order as prayed, or with such modifications as, having regard to the recommendations of the commissioners and of the chairmen, he may think proper and necessary; but before making and issuing an Order, if any modification has been made on the draft Order originally deposited, the Secretary for Scotland shall cause a printed copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, and also at the office of the Treasury, and of such other public Departments as may be prescribed, and shall not for such time as may be prescribed issue a Provisional Order; and if, in such event, any recommendation is made to the Secretary for Scotland by the chairmen or the Treasury or any of such other public Departments with regard to matters arising out of any such modification he may have regard thereto before issuing a Provisional Order."—[Mr. Albert Russell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the Clause is to alter to some extent the provisions of Sub-, section (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act. It is an attempt to try to place some limitation upon what is at present an absolutely unfettered and unrestricted power inherent in the Secretary of State for Scotland to make modifications upon the terms of an Order when that Order has been approved by the Commissioners. Under the present system power is given to the Secretary of State for Scotland to make modifications upon an Order which has left the Commissioners and has been approved by them, in respect of a recommendation either by a Chairman of Committees or any other Government Department. Having regard to the alteration which is to be made in the Standing Orders, the reports made by Government Departments upon an Order after it has been deposited with them are certain in the future to be considered by the Commissioners, and the decision of the Commissioners will have to be taken if no Amendment is made in the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act. If one assumes a case arising in the future where the report of a Government Department has been duly brought forward and considered by the Commissioners, and the Commissioners have reached a decision upon it, and have either rejected a suggestion or given effect to it, that ought to end the matter as far as the particular report is concerned. Under the existing legislation it is still open to the Secretary of State to get a new edition of the old report presented by a Government Department, and he may, if he likes, still modify the provisions of an Order in the terms of that report, which ex hypothesi has already been considered and disposed of by the Commissioners.
It is essential, as far as possible, that Commissioners who have been delegated by Parliament should not have their work over-ridden by a Department of State, even by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in matters where they have already reached a decision after due consideration. The purpose of the proposed new Clause is to ensure that any further modifications of an Order after it has left the Commissioners shall be confined to
matters arising in a report from a Government Department dealing with modifications of the Order made by the Commissioners themselves, and which the Government Department had not had an opportunity of considering when the original Order was deposited. When legislating for the future of this very important branch of private legislation procedure, one should, as far as possible, be sure that the powers of Parliamentary Commissioners are not interfered with after they have reached a decision. The purpose of the Clause is to make sure that the powers of modification of the Secretary of State shall be restricted to such recommendations which he has received from a Government Department in relation to modifications of the original Order made by the Commissioners during the course of the inquiry. While one cannot hope that all power of modification should be removed from the Secretary of State, the proposed new Clause seeks to preserve his power to modify, but only in respect of all matters which may have arisen consequent upon a modification of the original draft Order deposited with him.

4.22 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The purpose of the proposed new Clause, as I understand it, is to allow the Secretary of State, when he is considering whether to introduce a confirming Bill, to have regard to any recommendations by the Chairmen and by the Commissioners, whatever may have been the past history of the provisional Order. It will provide further, though it is not expressly stated, that he shall not have regard to the recommendations of any Government Department unless there has been some modification of the provisional Order by the Commissioners after they have drafted the provisional Order and have held their inquiry. As things stand at present, a large discretion is permitted, and I think rightly permitted, to the Secretary of State to consider, not only any recommendations by the Chairmen and by the Commissioners, but also by Government Departments. The history of the use of this power is, I think, its justification. I do not think that it has been used in any autocratic way. Since the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend and I have con-
sidered the cases in which that power has been exercised during the 15 years since 1918.
It is true to say that the policy of successive Secretaries of State has been to attach the greatest weight to the recommendations of the Commissioners and the greatest importance to maintaining their authority. In every case where the Secretary of State has had to consider his attitude, he has in recent times consulted the chairman of the Commissioners wherever possible. Many of the modifications which are introduced at that late stage and taken into account are alterations or modifications which the promoters and other parties have themselves invited in consequence of some error or omission which took place in the proceedings before the Commission. It is most important that that power should be fully retained. I have been able to trace only one case in the last 15 years which would have been struck at under the proposed new Clause. It was a case where a Government Department, namely, the Ministry of Transport, recommended in their report that a certain Clause should be added to the provisional Order. The recommendation was rejected by the commissioners, and the new Clause was not in fact added by the commissioners. It then came under consideration by the Secretary of State at the time, and he incorporated the new Clause in the provisional Order, the reason being that it appeared that the omission of the new Clause had been made in error, the commissioners having been led to suppose that that Clause would only be necessary if another Clause were incorporated in the Provisional Order. In point of fact the other Clause had not been incorporated. That was however a misapprehension. It was necessary to correct it by the insertion of a new Clause at the invitation of the Government Department concerned. It was inserted. It met with no objection, and it has been a necessary and a beneficial part of the Order.
That is an illustration of the kind of case which arises, and which requires that the discretion of the Secretary of State should not be trammelled in the way suggested in the proposed new Clause. The most careful consideration has been given to the proposals of the Clause, and the conclusion has been
reached by my right hon. Friend that he is unable to accept it. He, however, authorises me to give to the Committee the assurance that under the new conditions which this Bill will create his discretion will be exercised as cautiously and sparingly as in the past, and, in particular, the fullest respect will be paid to the views of the commissioners. I think that with that assurance there may be general concurrence in the considered opinion of the Government that the Clause proposed is not required, and that the existing procedure should be preserved.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. J. REID: At first sight I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the proposed new Clause, but I feel that there is great weight in what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said. There is the additional point, which perhaps may be borne in mind in not pressing the Clause, that under this procedure, unlike procedure here, there is only one inquiry. There is no opportunity for omissions in the first inquiry to be put right in a subsequent inquiry before a Committee of the other House. As there are not these two inquiries in Scotland which are open to any party interested in a Private Bill in London, it seems to me that there is considerable justification for the Secretary of State being entitled after the first inquiry to make such Amendments as are necessary. I think the matter is kept in order by the undertaking given that this power will only be used in cases where it is really necessary, and I imagine that it will only be used in most cases with the consent of the promoters or other persons interested in the Amendments. Therefore, I think it would be unwise to press the new Clause.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: In view of the statement made by the Solicitor-General I am impressed by the desirability, in the interests of all concerned, of some power of revision being retained in the hands of the Secretary of State. I see the difficulty of endeavouring to fetter his hands in the way that the new Clause proposed. I am grateful for the assurance that has been given that if the power of modification is left in the hands of the Secretary of State, as hitherto, it will be exercised with that wise dis-
cretion with which it has been wielded in the past. Therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill, as the long title indicates, is to amend the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925, and to make further provision with regard to the properties and endowments of the Church. The Act of 1925 was designed, amongst other things, to vest in the General Trustees of the Church the necessary powers to deal with the extensive properties and endowments held for the Church, many of them acquired at and after the Reformation, which are extremely varied in character, and also those provided, since 1844, by the Church itself to the value of several million sterling, and to use its different resources to the best advantage. It is hardly surprising that in the eight years which have elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1925 certain flaws and omissions in the machinery of the Act should have been discovered, and the present Bill seeks to repair those defects.
As Scottish Members know, before 1925 Church property in the case of the ancient civic or ecclesiastical parish, which is known as a parish quoad omnia, was vested in the heritors or proprietors of lands in the parish in trust for the parishioners, and one of the main purposes of the Act of 1925 was to transfer these properties, together with the relative endowments derived from teinds or tithes, to the General Trustees for behoof of the Church. So far as this class of property was concerned, the arrangements were comparatively simple, although involving a great deal of negotiation and
work on the part of the General Trustees in carrying out the provisions of the Act in relation to that property. But the Act of 1925 also dealt with various other classes of Churches and ecclesiastical properties, and it is in regard to some of these that the Act has been found to be defective. I refer particularly to the churches and manses erected by the Church itself under the New Parishes Act of 1844 and forming new parishes known as parishes quoad sacra, and to the Parliamentary churches, manses and glebes which were provided by Parliamentary Commissioners appointed under the Acts of 1810 and 1824 in the more remote and thinly populated parts of the Highlands and Islands.
I need not at this stage enter into an explanation of the technicalities of the Bill in detail, but as an example of the kind of difficulty which it is necessary to rectify I might refer to Clauses 1 and 3. Section 37 of the Act of 1925 gave to the general trustees a general and also a wide power of disposal of any property of whatever description transferred to them in pursuance of that Act, and the Court of Session has in a recent case confirmed the extent and character of that power. But Section 34, which dealt with the quoad sacra parishes, expressly provided that the statutory properties and endowments of those parishes should be held by the general trustees for "the same ends, uses and purposes as those for which they were held by the persons in whom they were previously vested." Therefore, it was not clear that the general powers of disposal conferred by Section 37 applied to this class of property. Clause 1 of the present Bill removes that difficulty.
As regards Clause 3 the position is that while the Act provided for the transfer of the statutory properties and endowments belonging to the quoad sacra parishes—that is to say, generally speaking, the church building and the funds which required to be raised to secure an endowed stipend for the minister—it made no provision for the transfer of, and gave to the general trustees or to the General Assembly no power to deal with, other property and endowments, such as, for example, the manse or a church hall, or funds voluntarily raised by members of the church or given or bequeathed for the benefit of individual parishes. The
object of this Clause is to enable such non-statutory property and endowments to be transferred and disposed of as circumstances may require, subject always to the safeguards provided in the Bill, and to the directions and control of the General Assembly as regards the particular case, to be embodied in an Act of Assembly.
Many hon. Members from Scotland will be aware that since this Bill was introduced this particular Clause has been the subject of some criticism within the Church itself. Some Amendments of the Clause have already been made in another place, and as the result of discussion in the recent General Assembly certain further Amendments are proposed which will further safeguard the position of local interests and meet the criticisms which have been made that parishes which have local endowments might have no say in the matter of dealing with them. Behind all the provisions of the Bill dealing with the control of the property and endowments of the Church lies the fundamental fact that the union in 1929 of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church, coupled with changes of population and the large migrations of population to the great industrial and mining centres in Scotland necessitate some readjustment of the Church's parochial organisation and the most effective use of its property and endowments for the benefit of the people of the country. Since the economical distribution of the Church's resources demands the disposal of property here, the suppression of a parish there, the union of churches somewhere else and the transfer of its property and endowments to centres of population where these can be better utilised, it is clear that, so long as legitimate and local interests and rights are safeguarded, there should be in the hands of the authorities of the Church all necessary powers to give effect to the policy I have indicated. From this point of view Clause 7 may be regarded as of special importance.
I understand, moreover, that as the result of the Amendments agreed upon with various parties and inserted in the Bill in another place, subject to the further Amendments to which I have already referred, the Bill is substantially an agreed Measure so far as the Church and other parties interested are concerned. While it is the duty of Parlia-
ment to exercise at all times an overriding discretion in all matters coming before it, I hope that this House, bearing in mind that some of the powers sought are urgently needed and that the authorities of the Church have been at pains to meet and to satisfy all points of criticism, will be ready to facilitate the early passage into law of this useful and necessary Measure.
Only the other day I was asked to address the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in connection with the appeal that the Church is launching at the present time for a large sum of money to enable new churches to be provided in areas where the enormous growth of population demands additional centres of religious effort. And while referring to the General Assembly, may I here interpose a word to express the satisfaction which I am sure all Members of the House will feel that it was one of our number, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), who this year filled, with great distinction and acceptance, the office of Lord High Commissioner to the Assembly. I was impressed by the efficiency and zeal with which the Church is grappling with the problems in its midst, and I feel sure that I express the views of hon. Members that we are anxious to forward to the utmost the efforts of the Church to meet changing conditions and to reap the full benefits of the Union of the two great Churches in Scotland which the legislation passed by this House in the years 1921 and 1925 was intended to facilitate and promote. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland in its various manifestations and throughout its long history has deep roots in the Scottish character and has ever shown itself ready to adapt its administration to meet the ever changing conditions of modern life. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House of Commons.

4.47 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I will not do more than add one word to the very admirable speech which the Secretary of State has made. One of the greatest events in the religious history in any part of this island took place in the year 1929 when arrangements were made for the union of the Scottish churches. It gave an example to the world which might very well be followed in other places.
It was a union which was accomplished with a skill and ingenuity, and with a persistent patience, which reflected the highest possible credit on all those who brought it about, but, of course, there were, of necessity, a large number of subjects which were left untouched. There were things which experience alone could prove and arrangements which could only be tested as time went on. This Bill now seeks to tie up a great many loose ends and to provide for many things which could not at that time be contemplated. I have studied the Bill and have had many conversations with members of the Church of Scotland upon the subject, and I am sure that all who care for the interests of Scotland and for the religious life of its people are confident that these are wise and careful Amendments which it is now sought to make on the original arrangements which were devised by the union of the Churches of Scotland. The religious life of Scotland has been immensely stimulated and inspired by the unity of those who for long have seemed to be at strife. I am sure that it is the object of Parliament to do everything possible to aid and help the exertions of the Church to bring sweetness and comfort to the hearts of the Scottish people, and in that spirit I support the Bill.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL [Lords.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE 6.—(Constitution of Statutory Committee.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 4, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
of whom one shall be a person who carries on business in Scotland as a retail pharmacist."—[Mr. Stevenson.]

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stevenson) put this Amendment down with a view to raising a question in connection with the constitution of the Statutory Committee, but in view of the
Amendment in the name of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, which meets the point, I do not propose to move it.

4.53 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) The members first appointed by the council of the society shall include a pharmacist resident in Scotland and if, on the occurrence of a vacancy amongst the members appointed by the council of the society, none of these members is a pharmacist so resident, the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a pharmacist so resident.
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Albert Russell) for withdrawing his Amendment. It was moved in Committee upstairs, and on that occasion I resisted it on three grounds, first, that the Bill, as originally drafted, was an agreed Measure, secondly, because the North British branch of the Pharmaceutical Society were satisfied with the position as it existed in the Bill, and, thirdly, because the Scottish Office did not press for the concession. But since the Committee stage a change has taken place, and the position now is that the Scottish Office would like a Scottish representative on the committee, and, moreover, the Pharmaceutical Society has definitely asked for an amendment providing that one of the persons appointed by the society shall be a pharmacist resident in Scotland. That leaves the Government free to move this Amendment and to accept in principle the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stevenson).
The Amendment as originally drafted was not acceptable because of its wording. If it had been accepted the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society would only be able to appoint a man who was actually and actively engaged in the business. They would have been prevented from appointing an experienced pharmacist who may have retired, or from appointing a Scotsman of standing in the profession because he did not happen to be keeping a shop at that moment. But more important than that, if the original wording had been accepted while the original appointment would undoubtedly have been a Scotsman if and when a vacancy occurred, through
death or retirement, the next and subsequent appointments might not have been Scotsmen. That was the weakness of the hon. and learned Member's original Amendment. The Government's Amendment will allow an experienced man, although he may not be actually engaged in business, to be appointed, and it will also make express provision for keeping this representation to Scotland in the filling of each vacancy. I hope that hon. Members will prefer the Government's proposal to their own.

4.58 p.m.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I regret very much that this Amendment has been introduced on behalf of the Government. I can well understand what has been said from the professional point of view and the necessity of balancing the correct psychology of the council in regard to those members who will administer this Bill when it becomes an Act, and, therefore, because the Pharmaceutical Council and the Government, in their wisdom, think this Amendment is essential I do not feel justified in going to a Division in opposition to it. But I want to register my most emphatic protest on the fact that a, great number of pharmacists in Lancashire and Yorkshire, who outnumber by thousands the pharmacists in the whole of Scotland, will not have even 10 per cent. of the representation on the committee which the few scattered pharmacists in the upper end of this island are to have on this committee. I speak with some little knowledge of the subject. During the War I had the honour and pleasure of serving in what was known as the poison section of the Royal Engineers, and under the most skilful pharmacists in the world one had an opportunity of knowing and seeing the practical application of this great and splendid profession. We had a more efficiently trained and a finer group of pharmacists in the fighting men from Lancashire and Yorkshire and the North of England than you will find in the whole of Scotland. They were wonderful in fighting efficiency. As I say, I shall not go to a Division on this matter but I want to register my protest against what I consider to be the most undemocratic position which the Scottish pharmacists have taken up in this matter. If the inner history of this Amendment was examined it would be found that a
rather remarkable super representation will be presented to the Scottish pharmacists for some unknown reason; but if the Government feel that the symmetry and balance of the matter requires that this man shall sit on the committee on behalf of Scottish interests specially, I hope it will not be taken as a precedent in similar Measures.

5.0 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I have listened with great interest to the opposition which has been presented to the Amendment moved by the Minister. As one of those interested in the original Measure, I would express my gratitude to the Minister for the much improved form which the Amendment has now taken, because, in spite of the protest of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden), it will ensure not merely the immediate appointment of a Scottish representative upon this council, but the perpetual appointment of a Scottish representative.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Most undemocratic.

Sir R. HORNE: When the hon. Member describes Scotland as the "upper part of this Island," I venture to make my protest. Robert Louis Stevenson was very indignant with a correspondent who addressed a letter to him and put on the envelope "North Britain." He said: "Whatever we are, we are not North Britain. We are the country of Scotland, and I enjoin you in future to address me as residing in Scotland, whenever I am there." The "upper end of this Island" is a term of insolent reproach which I refuse to accept on behalf of my native country. While in general questions, in regard to which all parts of Great Britain are mutually concerned, I am not one of those who would wish to support any kind of division, in connection with this Bill the hon. Member for West Leyton ought to recognise that there are circumstances which make necessary the appointment of a Scottish representative upon this council. There are five representatives, apart from one who has to have a legal training, and out of those five it is not disproportionate to ask that Scotland should have one representative.
There are duties of discipline entrusted to this council. Although it may be true that in the general run of science the
interests of England and Scotland are entirely alike, when it comes to a ques-of dealing with people who have committed some act which it is supposed has been inappropriate or illegitimate, it is expedient at least that someone who knows the conditions in which the supposed offences are committed should be on the council to represent a part of this Island which, after all, has traditions as separate and as honourable as those of any other part. Life is not entirely the same in Scotland. It is necessary, when it comes to decision of questions which may easily be raised under this Bill, that someone who knows the conditions of life in Scotland should have a place on the council. Accordingly I emphatically support the Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I expected, of course, that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) would support the Minister's proposal to include a representative of Scotland on this council, and he will not be offended, therefore, if I speak of the rights of Wales in this connection. I am amazed at the Under-Secretary so easily giving way to the claims of Scotland without considering other parts of the Kingdom. I was astonished too at the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden) putting the weight, as it were, against Lancashire in his argument, for he is a Lancashire man himself.

Sir W. SUGDEN: You misquote me entirely. I supported Lancashire.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member argued about the large number of persons employed in this profession in Lancashire, and he compared them with Scotland. As a Lancashire representative I want to stand for the claims of Lancashire.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Hear, hear.

Mr. DAVIES: I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he considers it fair to do what he is proposing in this Amendment. The five members of this council ought to sit there as representing the best intellect in the profession, irrespective of the disitrict from which they come. There was nothing territorial about the representation in the original Bill. If the five best men available are Scotsmen, they ought to be chosen from Scotland. In that case there would be
none from Wales or England. Likewise, if the five best representatives are to be secured from Wales, as might be the case, the five ought to be Welshmen. If the five men with the best brains come from England they should be chosen. I ask the Minister to ponder over his proposal and to ask himself whether he is playing the game in giving territorial representation on this council. If the vast majority of the pharmacists are in London and Lancashire, as is probably the case, then, on the argument of the right hon. Member for Hillhead the total representation, on territorial qualification, ought to come from London and Lancashire. I notice that the Under-Secretary, when the Bill was in Committee, said that if he accepted an Amendment which was moved to give Scotland special representation, how could he resist an appeal for Welsh representation or for representation of any other part of Great Britain? The strange thing to me is that he resisted an Amendment of this kind in Committee, but has given way since.
I protest against a proposal to include a representative from Scotland without any regard being paid to representation from Wales. Unless I am mistaken, one of the leading men in this profession who has recently passed away was a Welshman and an officer of the Pharmaceutical Society. We ought to be very careful what we do. Before we pass this Amendment the Minister ought to explain how he can square his resistance to this proposal in Committee with his total collapse now in face of the claim of Scottish Members to secure special representation. The day is fast coming in this House when every claim made by the Scottish people for anything under the law of this country will result in a similar claim coming from Wales. I ask the Under-Secretary again what he has to say regarding the contradiction that in Committee upstairs he resisted such a proposal as this, and that now he is willing to give this special representation to Scotland.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It has been noticeable in this House for many years that when people get obsessed with an inferiority complex they always ask for special representation. We see it from time to time in connection with the trade unions. It is one of the things which
obsesses Socialist Members. There have been innumerable cases in the past in which women have asked for special representation. As one who has the greatest respect and honour for the Scottish people, as one who knows that they are bound to get representation on their merits, I ask the Government not to inflict this penalty on the Scottish people,, but to withdraw this Amendment, which all Scotsmen capable of real thought realise would be a slur on Scotland. I ask the Government not to do this thing in these days. There is no reason for it. I do not know who is the person who started it, but it cannot be anyone with any considerable wisdom. We really have passed beyond the days of the inferiority complex. The Scottish people are quite capable of getting this place on their merits. They are absolutely efficient and capable. I do dislike hearing one or two timid Members of the Scottish race running down other people of that great race.

5.13 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: As a Scotsman I cannot let this Amendment pass without thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for his solicitude and his anxiety to do full justice to the Scottish people. We rarely have a Debate affecting Scotland without the hon. Member giving us the full benefit of his large-minded outlook and sense of humour. As to the inferiority complex, I do not think that this question comes under that heading at all. As far as I understand it, the whole point is a question of procedure in legislation. In Scotland we have our own form of legislation and procedure. Here it is a question not so much of ability as of local knowledge. We wish to have on this council someone who is conversant with the pharmaceutical practices of Scotland. With regard to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden), who spoke for Lancashire, we regard as impertinent his insular or semi-insular views in referring to Scotland as North Britain. Personally I always address anyone who writes to me from England in that way as "South Britain." In the special forms of procedure and legislation, such as we have in Scottish pharmaceutical practice, it is advisable that Scotland should have this special representation on the Council, and we are
grateful to the Government for having accepted that view.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Conditions to be fulfilled by body corporate in order to become authorised seller of poisons.)

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, after the word "be," to insert the words:
an authorised seller of poisons.

This is a purely drafting Amendment to clear up a possible misunderstanding.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Preparation of list of poisons for purposes of Act.)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
but no authority shall be granted to a person where facilities are already provided by an authorised seller of poisons.
Part II of the Bill extends the facilities for selling the poisons which come under its provisions, and it is felt by my hon. Friends and myself that unless there is some safeguard of the kind we propose and if there is an extension of facilities such as is provided for here, there may be wholesale abuses in connection with the sale of poisons. We suggest that where there are facilities under Part I of the Bill those should be sufficient instead of multiplying the number of persons who are to have facilities under Part II.

5.17 p.m.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I cannot support the Amendment because it would cut right across the principle of the Bill. This legislation is required in regard to three matters, first the protection of the public in connection with the supply of poisons; secondly, the necessity that agriculturists and horticulturalists who desire to obtain poisons for agricultural purposes under proper protection should have facilities for doing so, and, thirdly, the power of local authorities in regard to saying who shall and who shall not sell these poisons and thereby to guard the public without undue interference and also to give the great medical and veterinary professions proper facilities. I think if the Mover of the Amendment carefully considers the application of his Amendment to those three definite essential purposes and also the general application of
the Bill, he will see that what he desires to do is quite unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: Proposals to this effect have been made on several occasions in different forms and in connection with different parts of the Bill, during the Committee stage. But whatever the wording used the meaning has always been the same. This Amendment again differs in wording from previous proposals of the same kind, but the meaning remains the same. It means that if the Amendment be accepted, local authorities will have to grant or refuse licences under certain ill-defined conditions. They will be compelled to decide whether the facilities for obtaining poisons in a particular area are or are not sufficient, and the area is not defined. If there were, for instance, three ironmongers and two grocers in one street, the authority would have to decide whether in that case there were more than sufficient sellers of poisons under Part II, and if they decided that there were more than sufficient, they would have to make up their minds which of those shopkeepers should have a licence and which should be denied a licence. All the shopkeepers might be equally efficient. A discretion of that kind is not a fair discretion to impose on a local authority.
The Amendment, as the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden)has said, cuts right across the principle and policy of the Bill. The system of licences was imposed by the Act of 1908 and the Departmental Committee found that the system was objectionable. Agricultural and horticultural interests have complained bitterly about the working of the system. The Amendment is opposed by the Minister of Agriculture and agriculturists, I believe, gave evidence before the Committee against the system of licensing. As far as I can gather there is nothing in favour of this Amendment. Even the place at which it is proposed to insert these words in the Bill is not right. The hon. Member wishes to insert the words in Clause 17 which deals with the preparation of the list of poisons for the purposes of the Act, but surely the Amendment would be more appro-
priate on Clause 21, which deals with persons other than authorised sellers of poisons, to be entitled to sell poisons in Part II of the Poisons list. I think the Amendment stands condemned on every ground and it is certainly condemned by all who have given close study to this problem.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am rather surprised at the attitude taken by the Under-Secretary towards the Amendment and especially his criticism of the place at which it is proposed to insert these words. How different his attitude towards this Amendment, from his attitude towards this Amendment moved earlier in the day by the representatives from Scotland. In that case he not only gave way, but he actually fitted in a new Amendment to meet all their demands. There was no question in that case of the Amendment coming in at the wrong place. The right hon. Gentleman put in an Amendment of his own and if he wanted to accept this principle—

Mr. HACKING: I do not. That is the difference.

Mr. DAVIES: I know the right hon. Gentleman does not, and consequently the last part of his argument is of no avail. The right hon. Gentleman will agree at any rate with one proposition. We want to safeguard the public against the possibility of authority being given to everybody and anybody to sell poisons. That is the main object of the Amendment. When the right hon. Gentleman complains that it would put power into the hands of local authorities to decide who should and who should not sell poisons, I would ask him is that not the proper thing to do. Imagine authority being given to perhaps a dozen people in one street to sell poisons. Yet such might be the case, if this Amendment is not carried.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I think the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. His Amendment would multiply the number of untrained people who could dispense poisons under any conditions. Under this Bill local authorities are given the power to test and to adjust the opportunities of the public to obtain these necessities and to protect them without unreasonable interference. The Amendment would do the very opposite.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman is more learned in the law than I am and surely he must realise the effect of this Amendment. I want to show how sensible our proposal is and to indicate that at any rate some sense can come from this side of the House on some occasions.

Sir W. SUGOEN: I agree—sometimes.

Mr. DAVIES: Clearly the intention of the Amendment is to see that the public shall not be able to get poisons at will and at random as it were. Hon. Members know how easy it is in some parts of the country to secure poisons. We thought that by this Amendment we would help the Government in putting the Bill into proper shape and we have been trying to do that all along in connection with this Measure.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 20.—(Exemption with respect to sales wholesale and sales to certain persons.)

5.23 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, in page 20, line 12, to leave out the words
"engaged in" and to insert instead thereof the words "concerned with."
In Committee, the hon. Member for Wirrall (Dr. Clayton) drew attention to the fact that Clause 20 did not exempt such bodies as the Institute of Chemistry from the provisions of the Measure. This Amendment makes it clear that that Institute and similar Institutes concerned with scientific education or research are so exempted. It is, in the main, a drafting Amendment and will make the position in that respect quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.25 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: This very important Bill, with 31 Clauses and two Schedules, has had very little discussion on the Floor of the House. The Second Reading was taken after one o'clock in the morning when hon. Members did not desire to keep the House sitting, and with the exception of a protest from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) nothing was said regarding it, and there was not even an introductory speech by the Minister in charge. I am sure that many hon. Members have like
myself received protests from members of pharmacists' societies in their divisions protesting against the provisions of the Bill. I understand there are some thousands of registered chemists who are not members of the official society— memembership of which is voluntary—and who have not been consulted regarding the Bill. The Bill as it stands has been approved by the British Pharmaceutical Association but not by some of the other organisations, which include in their membership a large number of the registered chemists throughout the country. Those organisations ought to have been consulted before the Bill was introduced in its present form.
The Bill is divided into three parts. The first deals with the domestic affairs of the society which I have just mentioned. That however is not the most serious part of the Measure. Part II deals with the dispensing and distribution of poisons, and that is, to us, the most important part. Once the public realise what is being done by the Bill especially in Part II they will look upon it with a certain amount of dismay. The proposal of the Bill is to increase instead of restrict the sale of poisons. That was plainly put by the Under-Secretary in Committee. Replying to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son) the right hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member, I think, does Act understand the position. The object of the Bill is to give people who are not now entitled to sell poisons the opportunity of selling them"—
He added, it is true, these words—
in the interests of the public. It will give ironmongers and grocers a better opportunity to sell poisons than they have at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), Tuesday, 9th May; cols. 29 and 30.]
We look upon this extension of the sale of poisons with a good deal of apprehension. We think the Bill ought to restrict and not increase these facilities. Further, there are certain very obnoxious poisons which may be brought in under Part II of the Bill and which traders such as ironmongers and grocers will have an opportunity of selling. The Bill proposes the repeal of all existing legislation dealing with the sale of poisons except the Dangerous Drugs Acts. The Arsenic Act of 1851 in its entirety and the Pharmacy Acts of 1868 to 1908, in so far as they deal with poisons, are to go. The time-
honoured poisons schedules are also to be abolished together with the legal distinction, and the object of the Bill is clearly as stated by the Minister in Committee. How far are these extended facilities going to affect the public? There must be some 10,000 pharmacists in the country, and one would have imagined that those pharmacists with their distributive machinery, would provide all the facilities necessary for the sale of poisons.
As far as I can see, there will be little or no restriction. Even if we take the words of the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment which I moved, if there are five ironmongers and three grocers in a village, the difficulty of the local authority will be to distinguish between the ironmongers and the grocers, as to which -of them should have the opportunity of selling these poisons. I shudder to think what will happen, because it is estimated that there are some 80,000 grocers with separate grocers' shops in the country, some 60,000 ironmongers' shops, and about 100,000 animal food merchants' shops. Are all these traders going to have facilities granted them under Part II of this Bill for the purpose of selling the poisons agreed upon by the Poisons Board which is to be set up?
We say that the distinction between Part I and Part II ought to be, not broadened, but restricted, and we would have all of the poisons—and I could mention quite a number of them—disposed of by persons who are really competent, and when those poisons, obnoxious as they are, are disposed of, a proper record as to their disposal should be kept. My reading of the Bill is that under Part I that is so, but that under Part II that is not so. I may be wrong, and if I am, the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of correcting me. I trust that I am wrong, but, as I read the Bill, in regard to the poisons which are to be sold under Part II, as long as they are sold in proper containers, there is no requirement that the name and address of the person to whom the poison is sold should be retained by the person who sells the poison, and there is no possible opportunity of tracing those poisons, once they have been sold.
The position, as I see it, is that Part II of the Poisons List is to comprise the poisons which may be sold by
anyone who is not a qualified pharmacist. According to statements which have appeared in the Journal of the Institute, the intention of the Home Office is that these unqualified vendors shall be restricted to selling only poisons used for agricultural, horticultural, sanitary, and industrial purposes. This means not only that the arsenic and nicotine sheep-dips and weed killers already on sale at village grocers' stores and big suburban ironmongers and corn dealers will continue to be obtainable there, but that these vendors will be allowed to lay in stocks of lysol, carbolic acid, and similar sanitary preparations. Moreover, the sale of cyanide of potassium, corrosive sublimate, oil of vitriol, and other desperately dangerous things used every day for industrial purposes may be allowed to any shopkeeper who claims to be registered as entitled to sell poisons under Part II of the Poisons List.
I have given, I think, sufficient indication that this is a very important Bill, and I repeat that, instead of the Home Office extending the right of shopkeepers to sell poisons such as those which I have described, one would have imagined that in the public interest there would have been a kind of co-ordinating Bill to restrict the sale of those poisons and, when a sale had taken place, make it possible for the person to whom the sale had been made to be traced. Speaking on behalf of the public, I can only say that, with an extension of the facilities such as I have described as likely to take place, the public are likely to view this Bill with a good deal of apprehension. I do not want to cite the number of cases which have been brought to our notice from time to time by the Press, of tragedies which have taken place owing to the very easy manner in which poisons can now be obtained, but I say that there is a possibility of wholesale abuse unless the Home Office regards this Bill, as I regard it, with a good deal of concern. I would that, instead of extending the list of those authorised to sell poisons under Part II, there had been a restriction, and that poisons would have been allowed to be sold only by those proved competent by examination to sell them. For that reason, I have felt it incumbent on my part to express my views on the Third Reading of this Bill.

5.36 p.m.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I have listened very carefully to all that my hon. Friend has said in criticism of this Bill, but I am not quite sure whether, in his very busy life, he has been able carefully to digest each of the special Clauses of this Bill as well as the report of the Committee which investigated the whole of the problem and the circumstances, and pondered over them too, may I say, for a considerable time. When my hon. Friend speaks about a certain very minor section of so-called organised pharmacists who object to this Bill, I would ask him to remember that there has been no taking by surprise of any section of this professional class. They have had years in which thoroughly to digest the report of the Committee with regard to the general handling and sale of poisons, and whatever may be their special public spirit, they at any rate have not gone to the expense to which the Government have gone to promote a Bill to remedy some of the unfortunate conditions that at present obtain with regard to the easy facilities for obtaining poisons.
First of all, therefore, I would say that a minor section of professional interests have not played their part in presenting a protective Measure on behalf of the public. Secondly, unlike my hon. Friend, I have had thousands of letters and postcards from men and women up and down the country, including doctors and professional men in other departments of life, who use drugs and are compelled to mix and administer them, thanking me for some insignificant part that I have taken in regard to general poison legislation matters and in trying to assist the country to a proper estimation as regards the protection of every section of the public and to restrict the illegitimate facilities for obtaining certain questionable drugs which the public, to their danger, at present have. Unlike that of my hon. Friend, my postbag has been overcrowded with letters of appreciation with regard to this vital Measure.
My hon. Friend is very uncertain, he says, as to the correct and proper choice of sellers of poisons, but he will find in the Bill that a very select Board is to be set up, comprising one of the super-mentalities from Scotland, to assist in inspecting, organising, and making regulations for the correct sale and supply
of these medicines and drugs in a way that will be safe for the public, and, be it said, in the most economic and money-saving fashion too. I want my hon. Friend to visualise some of the little grocers' shops in some of the scattered villages, the one-man and the one-woman shopkeeper where the little child comes in and gets a pennyworth of sweets. The hand that goes into the bottle to get the sweets may the next moment have to deal with a pennyworth of weed-killer containing poison, and when another child comes in for sweets, the shopkeeper may have, perhaps with a washed hand or perhaps not, to put that same hand into a bottle of sweets which a moment before had handled loose poison. Under this Bill that would be impossible.
There are certain features of the Bill, I admit, that I would have preferred to see improved. For example, there is a provision that the county council shall have power to nominate who shall be the seller of poisons in a village, it may be, some 30 miles away from the county town, whereas I think that might have been improved by allowing the county and municipal boroughs to have that power by encircling the villages inside such borough territorial groups. But, taking the Bill as a whole, when the British public thoroughly understand the working and the purpose of this Measure; I think they will find that they have much to thank this Government for in bringing forward a practical and helpful Measure which will raise the standard of efficiency of the pharmaceutical chemist still higher than it is, even at present, and will help those who administer medicines in the medical fraternity, and give some assistance also to the veterinary colleges and surgeons. On the whole, and as a main issue, this Bill when it becomes law will be one splendid Measure, at any rate, that the Government have passed during their tenure of office and which will spell progress in the march of those who practise the art of healing.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) complained at the beginning of his speech of the method of introduction of the Bill on Second Reading, but if he will refer to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards),
Who sits beside him, he will know that I asked Whether or not the Opposition would care for me to make an opening statement in introducing it on Second Reading, and that I was informed that as it was very late at night or early in the morning, and as the Bill was agreed on all sides, it was unnecessary for me to say anything then. I hope, therefore, I shall be absolved from any desire to keep from the House anything that is contained in the Bill. Then the hon. Member said that bodies other than the Pharmaceutical Society had not been consulted. It is true that a large number of bodies and individuals were consulted, but I must admit that there were certain people Who were left out when consultations took place. We did, however, consult all the important bodies. The Pharmaceutical Society represents an overwhelming number of the chemists of this country, and the other associations are really insignificant in comparison
The hon. Member said that this Bill would increase the facilities for the purchase of poisons, but what poisons? Did he mean the purchase of very dangerous substances or substances which are not so dangerous and which are required in large volume or in bulk for agriculturists or horticulturists? That is the point. It is a question of the danger of the substances Which will be able to be sold under Part II of this Bill. The Bill will certainly increase the facilities for the purchase of certain dangerous substances, but the substances which will be placed into either Part I or Part II will be decided by the Poisons Board, and it is clear that that board, with all their experience, will not put really dangerous substances into Part IT, but will retain those for Part I, to be dealt with, made up, and sold only by experienced chemists. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 17 of the Bill, he will see these words in Sub-section (3):
In determining the distribution of poisons as between Part I and Part II of the said list, regard shall be had to the desirability"—
I emphasise the word"desirability"—
of restricting the said Part II to articles which are in common use, or likely to come into common use, for purposes other than the treatment of human ailments, and which it is reasonably necessary to include in the said Part II if the public are to have adequate facilities for obtaining them.
Sub-section (4) is also important:
The Secretary of State shall forthwith take into consideration the list submitted to him by the Poisons Board"—
that is, the list which will state what, in the opinion of the Poisons Board, should be included in Part I and what should be included in Part II—
and may by Order confirm it, with or without modifications, as he thinks proper.
If it is found that in practice Part II contains dangerous elements, the Secretary of State has power under Sub-section (5)
after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Poisons Board, by Order to amend or vary the said list as he thinks proper.
Surely there is plenty of safeguard in those provisions to prevent any really dangerous substances being sold by an unauthorised and unqualified man. If the hon. Member is not satisfied, I would ask him to turn to Clause 18, which contains the prohibitions and regulations. If he reads that Clause with care, I am sure that he will be satisfied that the regulations are sufficient to ensure that under Part II of the Bill the public health will not be endangered. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member to know it, I would point out that there are at present a group of dangerous substances, such as spirits of salts, etc., which can be sold by anyone, however undesirable he may he. That is under the present law. These substances may or may not be in Part II after this Bill becomes an Act, but, at any rate, the position is that under the existing law very dangerous substances can be sold by anybody, however undesirable. I am sorry to feel that this Bill is receiving opposition at the hands of a Member of the Opposition party—

Mr. G. HALL: Criticism.

Mr. HACKING: I am sorry that the hon. Member even criticises it, and especially that he criticises Part II, for I would remind him that the Bill was originally introduced by the Labour Government, and the principle contained in Part II of this Bill was actually in the Bill which was introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Before condemning the Bill the hon. Member might have taken that fact into consideration. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden) has said quite rightly that this Bill has
been before the House for several years and before the country for an even longer period. It meets with the general approval of all persons concerned directly and indirectly in the sale of poisonous substances. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading now in the interest of the sellers as well as of the purchasers of dangerous substances.

SERVICE OF PROCESS (JUSTICES) BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill to enable summonses issued by justices to be served by post, subject to certain safeguards, and also to facilitate the proof of service. At the present time it is generally necessary for a summons to be served upon the defendant personally or to be left with some person for him at his last or usual place of abode. Ordinarily, summonses issued by justices are served by the police, and it is necessary for a police officer to serve the defendant personally or to leave the summons at his abode. If the defendant does not appear in answer to the summons, it is necessary to prove before the court that the summons was served, and proof is given by the evidence of the police officer who served the summons, or more usually by the production of a declaration made before any justice of the peace in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. The House will realise that that is a very costly form of procedure. Generally speaking, the law relating to the service of summonses is the same as it was so long ago as 1848. The House will realise that at that time the postal service was in its infancy, and it would have been impossible to carry out the service of summons by any other means than by hand. But to-day—so at any rate the Postmaster-General constantly informs us—the postal service is a highly developed organisatioh by which every letter posted in the country is delivered within a period of 24 hours.
Many of the cases dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction are traffic cases, and in a large number of those cases the defendant obviously lives in a part of the country other than that in which the offence was committed. In these cases, before the summons can be delivered by a policeman, it has to be sent from one police district to another, and this procedure involves considerable expenditure of time of police officers, and in some cases the inevitable delay is disadvantageous to the defendant as it shortens the time available for the preparation of his defence.
The proposals contained in this Bill are substantially identical with the recommendations of the Magistrates' Association which were contained in their Annual Report of 1928. I should add that service of summons by post is not really a novel procedure. Bate summonses can already be served by post, and so can summonses issued under the Public Health Acts and under the Acts incorporated therewith. So we are not really doing anything particularly novel in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.
I will briefly deal with the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 authorises the service of summonses by post. It will be noticed that this manner of service is optional and not compulsory. It reads:
Service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace in England may be effected by sending it by post to the defendant in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his last or usual place of abode.
The proviso to Sub-section (1) sets out the safeguards, and says that the actual service shall not be deemed to have been effected unless it is in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b). Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 makes provision to meet the cases where the original summons is deemed not to have been effected. Subsection (3) states that the Clause shall not apply to cases of witnesses who are summoned to appear to give evidence, and also to members of the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of the Crown for the maintenance of their wives and children. The Clause also does not apply to the service of summonses outside England. I hope that that will not be considered another injustice to Scotland. Clause 2 deals with proof of service of documents in proceedings before and on appeals from Justices. That in the main
is an operative Clause. It also lays down the penalty for false statements. Clause 3 gives the short title, interpretation and date of commencement of the Bill.
The Bill will effect a great saving of the time of the police, enabling them to concentrate on more important duties, such as the prevention of crime. It may interest the House if I gave a few figures in connection with the present situation. In the Metropolitan Police district 194,000 summonses a year are served, and there are 143 officers permanently engaged in the service of summonses and the execution of warrants. Some 18,000 hours a year are spent by other officers on similar duties. During 1930 in England and Wales alone 508,000 summonses were issued in respect of summary offences and 14,000 in respect of indict able offences. The alterations in the law which the Bill proposes are supported by chief constables throughout the country. It is anticipated that the Bill will effect a very substantial economy and that this economy will be effected without detriment to the administration of justice. As far as I know, there is no opposition to this Bill. None has been represented to my right hon. Friend, and it is therefore hoped that without undue delay it will receive a Second Reading.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that the House will be glad to have listened to the explanation of the hon. Gentleman on the provisions of this Bill. As he has rightly said there is no opposition to it. If there were, I should imagine that that side of the House would have been filled with members of the legal profession. We have yet to hear what any of them have to say on the Measure. Those who have looked at the provisions of this Bill inform me that it is a very necessary Measure. The fact that the Government are proposing it makes us a little doubtful and suspicious because we are doubtful and suspicious of everything they do, but in this connection very little criticism has been levelled against the Measure. The mere fact of the Magistrates' Association supporting the Bill is not in itself, in my view, a sufficient reason for supporting it. I believe, however, that from the point of view of defendants it will facilitate the procedure
of the law, for any person who offends against the law desires the matter to be cleared up as speedily as possible. From that point of view, the Bill is very necessary and will be welcomed in many quarters.

5.59 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this Bill has been received with approbation, because, speaking as a magistrate who has spent a considerable part of his time in the administration of summary jurisdiction, I view the service of a summons by post with considerable distrust and doubt. I appreciate that we are saving expenditure on the police, and I rather think that that is the sole reason for this proposal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully before we take the next stage of the Bill the difficulties which are likely to arise when it is put into operation. As we have been told, every summons under the Summary Jurisdiction Act has to be served at present by a police constable. When the summons is granted to a police constable in the place where the alleged offence was committed it is sent to a police officer in the place where the defendant resides. That officer serves the summons personally on the defendant, and returns a declaration to the police constable to whom the summons was granted that it has been duly served. I am not prepared, because my experience is too limited for that purpose, to tell the House what proportion of defendants do not appear in court, but they constitute a very considerable number. When there is a failure to appear on the part of a defendant the declaration is put in evidence as proof of the service of the summons upon him. If the case is of minor importance the bench may then say that they will decide it in the absence of the defendant. If, on the other hand, it is a case of importance the bench will say that the defendant must appear, and they will issue a warrant for his arrest or to secure his attendance the following week.
The sole purpose of making the change proposed is that it will save what the right hon. Gentleman represented to be a considerable expense, but I suggest that the saving will not by any means be so important as he indicated. I recognise that the Bill is a permissive one, but that
makes no difference from the point of view of the prosecutor. What is to happen, from the point of view of the prosecutor, where the summons has been served by post? As the law stands at present the prosecutor goes to court well knowing that in 99 cases out of 100 the case will be dealt with that day. Now the summons may be served by post, but I would draw attention to this proviso:
Provided that, notwithstanding that a summons has been sent by post in manner authorised by this Sub-section, service shall be deemed not to have been effected unless either—

(a) the defendant appears, either in person or by counsel or solicitor, in manner required by the summons; or
(b) it is proved to the satisfaction of the justices that the summons came to the knowledge of the defendant."

If the defendant appears in person or is legally represented, of course there is a saving, and the case will be proceeded with; but in the other case the question will arise of proving to the satisfaction of the justices that the summons had come to the knowledge of the defendant and I suggest that it may be almost impossible to do that in many cases. I fear that what will happen will be that in a larger number of cases than at present the defendant will not appear at all, but the prosecutor—and it must be remembered that for the most part these are poor people—will have to be in attendance at the court, because he will not know whether the defendant is going to appear and will not know that the case cannot be proceeded with. In numerous cases, therefore, he will be put to the trouble of having to attend a second time with his witnesses.
I have no desire to oppose this Measure, the second part of which is useful, and it may be possible to make it into a useful Measure, but I would impress upon the Home Office with all the force that I can, speaking as one who is used to procedure in the courts, that as the Bill stands at present it would put prosecutors and their advisers to the very greatest difficulties and would add enormously to the costs falling upon a large number of very poor persons. The number of cases in which the defendant does not appear is a very considerable proportion indeed, and it is very likely that the number will increase, because defendants will not take the trouble to comply with a summons received by post, and the confusion that
will follow may be very great. I rather gathered that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Magistrates' Association was in favour of the Bill. I was not aware of that, but I do know that the magistrates' clerks in my part of the country have raised this question with me and asked me to bring it before the House, and that is one of the reasons why I have pointed out the possibilities of what may happen, and why they think that instead of assisting police court procedure it may very well have an opposite effect.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I am rather glad that the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) spoke as he did, because I feel that his contentions are perefectly correct, and that a good deal of feeling will be raised over the advisability, or, rather, the inadvisability, of carrying the Measure in its present form. On the face of it, it looks a harmless method of saving expense, if we think only of saving the time of police officers, and one is anxious to prevent unnecessary expenditure if that can be done without detriment to those who come within the purview of this Bill. But in my view the Bill as it stands will not be acceptable to a large number of people who have experience of the working of the courts of summary jurisdiction. I, too, have had a similar experience to that of my hon. and learned Friend in that a magistrate's clerk with considerable knowledge has expressed to me the view that this Bill will not only not result in a saving of expense, but may possibly create a considerable amount of additional expenditure. Obviously no one desires to do anything which menaces the liberty of the subject. Reading the Bill casually, one would imagine that that consideration is not pertinent here, but the truth of the matter is that it really is very pertinent, because as the Bill stands at present there is the possibility of persons being convicted of offences without their knowledge. It may be that that will not happen in very many cases, but if service of a summons by post is to be allowed and such proof of service as may be adduced in accordance with this Bill in the course of a case is accepted, there is always the possibility of the summons coming into the hands of somebody who may not be the actual person to be
charged, and I think it is quite possible that a person may be sent to prison without his ever having had knowledge of the summons having been issued against him.
If on the other hand the summons is sent by post to a defendant, he may decide, when he gets it, that it is not advisable for him to appear in court at all, and may find it is a very suitable opportunity to evade attendance. In such a case what can the court do? The man does not write to them, he does not send a solicitor to the court, he merely ignores the summons which has come. The court may then decide to issue a fresh summons, and again it is served by post, and thus there is an opportunity given to the individual to escape service altogether. The cost of eventually tracing that individual will be very much greater than any expense which may have been saved by sending the summons by post instead of serving it upon him personally in the first instance. What is to happen in the case of bastardy summonses or maintenance summonses? Is the court to have complete discretion as to whether a summons is to be served by post in such cases? The individual concerned is involved in a very serious proceeding, and it may very well be that an order will be made against him without his knowledge and without his having any opportunity to defend the proceedings. Another question is, Who is to send the letter? Is it to be sent by the magistrate's clerk; is it to be sent by a police officer? A million or so summonses, possibly more, are served each year, and if they are sent by post it may lead to a considerable amount of evasion and a considerable measure of expense may be involved ultimately.
It might facilitate matters if, at a later stage, the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill would make it clear as to what type of summons this Bill is to apply. It may be possible by amendments to bring about the happy consumation which he thinks has already been achieved of everybody being in favour of the Bill, but as it stands I do not think the majority of people who have experience of the procedure in the courts can possibly accept it. Take the case of a person who is charged with a traffic offence—cases which are increasing in number day by day. There is nothing to prevent such a person from
giving a name and an address which are not his own. If he gets to know that the way in which a summons can be served upon him, in the first instance, at any rate is by post, it may be that he will take steps to ensure that he is not discovered, and if he is ultimately discovered it will be only after a considerable waste of time and expense. The Measure may work at first, for a month or so, but as soon as the procedure becomes known, people, with their ordinary human failings, will be quick to take advantage of the fact that a summons cannot be served, or will not be served, in the manner which is customary now, and which, in the majority of cases, they could not evade. In view of these considerations and the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend—and I am sure there must be many others which those who have experience in the courts could bring forward—I hope the Government will consider the question of amending the Bill very considerably, so that it may possibly meet the only object with which it could have been promoted, and that is to save some expense.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that the defendants would not appear, that they did not appear at the present time in many cases and that they would be less likely to appear in the future; therefore prosecutors would be subjected to greater annoyance and to considerable expense. His experience in this matter is very great and much greater than my own, and the Government are not prepared to ignore his great experience in this matter. I must, however, point out to him, although he admitted it himself, that this procedure is purely permissive, and that if it were found that advantage was taken of the serving of the summonses by post, common sense would ensure that this form of service would be discontinued. The suggestion has been made that this Bill should be considered by a Committee of the whole House, but I think that the House would wish that the Bill should be sent to a Standing Committee to be dealt with in the normal way. I believe that the hon. and learned Baronet said that he did not know that the Magistrates' Association had supported this proposal.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I said that I was not aware of it.

Mr. HACKING: I thought that he went on to say that the magistrates in his own constituency did not support it.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: They were the magistrates' clerks of two or three petty sessional divisions.

Mr. HACKING: I did not make my observations without knowledge of the facts, and I think that the hon. and learned Baronet would be interested to know that, in the annual report of the Magistrates' Association for 1928, these words are used:
Service of Summonses by Post.—We have considered the present methods of serving summonses, and it is recommended that in addition to other modes of service any summons may be served by post, provided that no hearing shall take place upon a summons so served unless either the defendant appears in person, or by counsel or solicitor, or a letter is received in answer to the summons purporting to be signed by the person to whom it is addressed.
It is further recommended that Section 41 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, should be extended so as to permit the service of a summons, etc., being proved by a certificate signed by the person effecting the
service. A wilfully untrue statement in such a certificate should be an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It will be observed that we are not departing one iota from the recommendation made by the Magistrates' Association. I want to make it quite clear that, in asking the House to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, it was not the desire of the Government to have the Bill discussed by a Committee of the whole House, but that it should go upstairs, in the normal way, where every consideration will be given to the suggestions that have been made.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Womersley.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Six o'Clock.